Elk County Forum

Just trying to get a consensus and maybe start a discussion.  For those of you who missed it, the Justice department announced a special prosecuter to look into the actions of the previous administration.

Also for reference, the definition of torture is...

1.    the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.    a method of inflicting such pain.
3.    Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.    extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.    a cause of severe pain or anguish.

By using torture, we are showing that we are no better than the worst of our enemies. Abhu Graib (spelling?) and Gitmo shall live in infamy as dark days in the history of the United States. As a people we have suffered through attacks from our enemies and as a result became stronger, but this torture business has attacked the moral fiber of our society. The quicker we clean it up, the quicker we can become strong again.

Here's how federal law defines torture (Ref. Title 18, PART I, Chap. 113C, Section 2340):

(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality

I can't honestly vote as there are too many branches to this question.
We ARE talking about military terrorist stuff here right?
Several questions and thoughts come to mind...
What is considered 'torture"... and by whom? ?
Whatever happened to "tell us what we want to know or we kill you".......... ???

And how do you deal with a group of people who have no moral thoughts or signature? The Al Quaida are the most inhumane creatures that there is to women, children and animals.. are we supposed to find them and lock them in prison.. give them 3 meals a day and put them on trial? Maybe we should just beg the enemy for information. "Pretty please with a cherry drop on top". Would that make Obama and his wimps happy with interrogation? I'm sure they will tell us anything we want to know if we would only be nicer to them.   ::)
These men would just as soon die blowing up a school full of children than look you in the eye.. How do you deal with that?

I might be a hard ass where this is concerned..but I think actually that if you have one or more Islamic subjects to interrogate you do 2 things. Take them up for a helicopter ride and carry a container of pigs blood. Go to 1000 feet altitude and give him a choice. Jump or get pigs blood poured on him. I think he'll  talk ... and if he doesn't...  pour it on him and throw him out. Then look at the 2nd  one whose been sitting there watching. ( make sure you have a tape recorder handy cause there might be some talking..) if not.. well.........bye bye.. no big loss.
A little pay back for the Americans they have beheaded and mutilated.

Quote from: Teresa on August 25, 2009, 12:31:10 PM
I can't honestly vote as there are too many branches to this question.
We ARE talking about military terrorist stuff here right?
Several questions and thoughts come to mind...
What is considered 'torture"... and by whom? ?
Whatever happened to "tell us what we want to know or we kill you".......... ???

And how do you deal with a group of people who have no moral thoughts or signature? The Al Quaida are the most inhumane creatures that there is to women, children and animals.. are we supposed to find them and lock them in prison.. give them 3 meals a day and put them on trial? Maybe we should just beg the enemy for information. "Pretty please with a cherry drop on top". Would that make Obama and his wimps happy with interrogation? I'm sure they will tell us anything we want to know if we would only be nicer to them.   ::)
These men would just as soon die blowing up a school full of children than look you in the eye.. How do you deal with that?

I might be a hard ass where this is concerned..but I think actually that if you have one or more Islamic subjects to interrogate you do 2 things. Take them up for a helicopter ride and carry a container of pigs blood. Go to 1000 feet altitude and give him a choice. Jump or get pigs blood poured on him. I think he'll  talk ... and if he doesn't...  pour it on him and throw him out. Then look at the 2nd  one whose been sitting there watching. ( make sure you have a tape recorder handy cause there might be some talking..) if not.. well.........bye bye.. no big loss.
A little pay back for the Americans they have beheaded and mutilated.

Please define "Islamic Subjects"

Yes its acceptable in certain situations.  I remember a few years back i believe col west was interrogating a terrorist who had information that we needed and needed fast. So after the initial attempts at getting this info unsuccessfully asking the terrorist nicely, he pulled his .45 and fired it at the terrorists head but purposely missing him.  The information was obtained and our servicemen were saved from a lot of IEDs and attacks and ambush's they were heading into.  

"Islamic Subjects".. meaning Islamic terrorists.. Islamic fundamentalist who who are willing to kill and be killed for Allah.
"Islamic Subjects".... as they are generally the ones who are trying to kill us..so I used that term because I was categorizing  on a terrorist level..

And before you go off on me......... Nooo I don't think all Islamic people are bad.. warped maybe ..but not bad.

Quote from: Anmar on August 25, 2009, 12:33:07 PM

Quote from: Teresa on August 25, 2009, 12:31:10 PM
I can't honestly vote as there are too many branches to this question.
We ARE talking about military terrorist stuff here right?
Several questions and thoughts come to mind...
What is considered 'torture"... and by whom? ?
Whatever happened to "tell us what we want to know or we kill you".......... ???

And how do you deal with a group of people who have no moral thoughts or signature? The Al Quaida are the most inhumane creatures that there is to women, children and animals.. are we supposed to find them and lock them in prison.. give them 3 meals a day and put them on trial? Maybe we should just beg the enemy for information. "Pretty please with a cherry drop on top". Would that make Obama and his wimps happy with interrogation? I'm sure they will tell us anything we want to know if we would only be nicer to them.   ::)
These men would just as soon die blowing up a school full of children than look you in the eye.. How do you deal with that?

I might be a hard ass where this is concerned..but I think actually that if you have one or more Islamic subjects to interrogate you do 2 things. Take them up for a helicopter ride and carry a container of pigs blood. Go to 1000 feet altitude and give him a choice. Jump or get pigs blood poured on him. I think he'll  talk ... and if he doesn't...  pour it on him and throw him out. Then look at the 2nd  one whose been sitting there watching. ( make sure you have a tape recorder handy cause there might be some talking..) if not.. well.........bye bye.. no big loss.
A little pay back for the Americans they have beheaded and mutilated.

Please define "Islamic Subjects"

Oh come on now Anmar. Islamic subjects aka Muslims, aka Terrorists, aka the ones who go around blowing up small children and civilians trapped in 100 story buildings.   You know the ones who go running around yelling allah akbar carrying the head of the latest victim they hacked up with their scimitars

There are over 1 billion muslims in the world.  There are 8 million American Citizens that are muslim.  not all of them run around blowing things up.  Are you saying that they are all subject to torture?

Quote from: Anmar on August 25, 2009, 12:43:09 PM
There are over 1 billion muslims in the world.  There are 8 million American Citizens that are muslim.  not all of them run around blowing things up.  Are you saying that they are all subject to torture?

Did i say all 1 billion are running around with heads dangling or blowing up things?   as far as 1 billion being subject to torture, YES if their running around doing those things and have vital information that would prevent those things from happening that we need.

Anmar, I wondering if you are Muslim; but you don't have to answer.

Red, you are in great form today.

S, you didn't, but my questions were initially directed at Teresa, who did not make a distinction.  Your argument represents a slippery slope.  When you allow torture of a certain group of people, you eventually allow the government to torture anyone whom they decide deserves it, including Americans.  Where should the line be drawn?  Do we start torturing suspected criminals?  How about people who are suspected of making threats against the government?  Maybe we should bring back the spanish inquisition.

You claim to be Libertarian, yet every libertarian i know says that torture is flawed to the very core.  Granting the government the power to torture is definetly not a libertarian principle.

i DID make a distinction;........ read my post...

Quote from: Teresa on August 25, 2009, 01:00:25 PM
i DID make a distinction;........ read my post...

Yes, i saw that you went back and edited your post, at the time i was writing my post, you had not yet made the distinction.

Very brave, Anmar, for starting this topic.

Hey, guys - vote!

I think it ties in very well with the "What's a good American." We need to be allowed to disagree - and it seems on this topic there are very definite differences of opinion.  :D

Quote from: Anmar on August 25, 2009, 12:56:20 PM


You claim to be Libertarian, yet every libertarian i know says that torture is flawed to the very core.  Granting the government the power to torture is definetly not a libertarian principle.

Does it matter?  I also supported the iraq war....

 I think.........like it or not torture has ALWAYS gone on behind closed doors, it will ALWAYS go on behind said closed doors, it's part of war which is NOT a civilized Marquis of Queensbury type rules kind of activity. It didn't just start with THIS particular opponent.

It AIN'T right but it's GONNA happen.

Once again, I'm somewhere in the middle.  My answer to this poll question does not fit one of the five choices.  It's certainly not #'s 1, 4, or 5.  But it's not exactly #2 or 3 either.  IMO . . There are a very, very, very small number of instances where I believe a level of cohersion that would fall into the definition of torture, as it is presented, is warranted.  I guess the example I would give would be to prevent a significant loss of life, particularly civilian loss of life.

I agree with Pam on the fact that it's been going on basically forever, and still is, it's just more well hidden.

Charles

So we aren't a nation of laws? We should just chuck it all and whoever is the toughest, the biggest, meanest, should be on top? To heck with the kindergartener on the way to school, the big guy has had a couple of slugs and is in a hurry. If we chuck our own laws in favor of knee jerk reactions to a bunch of terrorists, then they have truly beaten us; right into the ground. We are no better and in fact we are worse; we are hippocrits of the first water. If you don't like our laws, work to change them. We have an avenue for it, and more than one law has been changed because of grassroots movements. But (wink) (wink) violation of those laws doesn't get it. Either we have them and abide by them or we get rid of the law.

Quote from: sixdogsmom on August 25, 2009, 04:36:31 PM
So we aren't a nation of laws? We should just chuck it all and whoever is the toughest, the biggest, meanest, should be on top? To heck with the kindergartener on the way to school, the big guy has had a couple of slugs and is in a hurry. If we chuck our own laws in favor of knee jerk reactions to a bunch of terrorists, then they have truly beaten us; right into the ground. We are no better and in fact we are worse; we are hippocrits of the first water. If you don't like our laws, work to change them. We have an avenue for it, and more than one law has been changed because of grassroots movements. But (wink) (wink) violation of those laws doesn't get it. Either we have them and abide by them or we get rid of the law.

The terrorists, and enemies of this country arent concerned with laws.  Secondly when their actions put this nation at risk, the extraordinary measures have to be taken to ensure that they do not succeed.  Like it or not its there its used and its necessary.  Thats why things like this is handled by military and not put up to people to vote on. 

The military is obligated by the legal system, maybe more stringent than the civilian courts. It is a given that terrorists do not abide by our laws, but if we do not abide by the law, why do we have it?

Quote from: sixdogsmom on August 25, 2009, 05:20:07 PM
The military is obligated by the legal system, maybe more stringent than the civilian courts. It is a given that terrorists do not abide by our laws, but if we do not abide by the law, why do we have it?

Actually the Military is bound by its own law, and the Constitution.  Civilian law does not have jurisdiction over the military. 

Quote from: sixdogsmom on August 25, 2009, 05:20:07 PM
The military is obligated by the legal system, maybe more stringent than the civilian courts. It is a given that terrorists do not abide by our laws, but if we do not abide by the law, why do we have it?

You know even the great legal minds of the day acknowlege that the laws cannot agree or cover interrogation techniques.  Its not black and white.  This topicis and always will be in a gray area subject to the needs of the nation.

The law is grey?  ???

Here's one area where I agree with Steve.  The definition of torture has (and does) differ(ed) depending on what authority, or "convention" you are following.  There is a lot of grey area.  What may have been deemed allowable 50 years ago, may not be today, or allowed, but with stricter constraints.  And the reverse can be true also.  It will never be cut and dry, black or white.  Societal norms morph over time, and from society to society, nation to nation.

Charles

Then perhaps it is time to make those definitions clear, and regain our self esteem. They waterboarded that Mohammed guy 183 times, and claim it was worth it. Mei Lai anyone?

Quote from: sixdogsmom on August 25, 2009, 07:08:40 PM
Then perhaps it is time to make those definitions clear, and regain our self esteem. They waterboarded that Mohammed guy 183 times, and claim it was worth it. Mei Lai anyone?

Why would you want to make the definition clear?  We have very real enemies out there that think nothing of killing millions of people if they could just get past the folks that keep us secure.   The other thing is that there are things that go on that the public knows nothing about and rightfully so.  You can't keep a country safe if you tell all that you do to keep it safe.

sixdog,
I don't think you can even come close to comparing the senseless slaughter of civilians at My Lai and waterboarding someone. One was  murder and the other is (questionable ) torture

What about rape?  There was a lot of that going on in Abu Ghraib, is that an acceptable means of torture to you Steve?

JH, I was referring to military run amuk, above the law and the sense of the law. Perhaps a better example would be the death camps in Germany in WWII. I am certain that the people who died there were considered enemies of the Reich and/or  the world would be better off with fewer threats if they were eliminated.

Quote from: srkruzich on August 25, 2009, 06:19:37 PM
Actually the Military is bound by its own law, and the Constitution.  Civilian law does not have jurisdiction over the military.

While the United States military branches do conduct their activities under a strict military rule of law, it is still subject to civilian authority, specifically Congressional oversight and an elected Commander-In-Chief, and his designee the Secretary of Defense (upon confirmation by the U.S. Senate.)

sixdogsmom, how would you have us extract information, that could keep our soldiers alive and our country safe, from people who do not wish to give it?

Billy, what makes you think that information extracted by torture is truth? A man waterboarded 183 times is unlikely to even know the truth much less care if the information given is truth. EIT often is torture for torture sake, and is a crime. Ask John McCain about torture and interrogation.

You didn't answer my question.

What makes you think that the information we gathered wasn't accurate?  Also, the torture McCain resulted in severe and lasting injury.  Last time I checked our techniques don't. 

Quote from: flintauqua on August 25, 2009, 08:20:00 PM

Quote from: srkruzich on August 25, 2009, 06:19:37 PM
Actually the Military is bound by its own law, and the Constitution.  Civilian law does not have jurisdiction over the military.

While the United States military branches do conduct their activities under a strict military rule of law, it is still subject to civilian authority, specifically Congressional oversight and an elected Commander-In-Chief, and his designee the Secretary of Defense (upon confirmation by the U.S. Senate.)

I think i covered that. THeir not subject to civilian law unless they waive the jurisdiction of the military.  The constitution covers the authority over the military.  But as far as the judicial branch and the civilian laws, they do not dictate what the military goes by.

Just trying to make it a little clearer for others.

Quote from: flintauqua on August 25, 2009, 09:33:45 PM
Just trying to make it a little clearer for others.

I don't know if you remember but a few years back several marines were accused of massecreing some people in iraq.  They brought these men home in chains and kept them in chains til they were aquitted of all charges by the Military tribunal

Yes I do.  As it should be.

Did you enjoy the television series J.A.G.?  Or the movie A Few Good Men?

Quote from: pamsback on August 25, 2009, 03:51:26 PM
I think.........like it or not torture has ALWAYS gone on behind closed doors, it will ALWAYS go on behind said closed doors, it's part of war which is NOT a civilized Marquis of Queensbury type rules kind of activity. It didn't just start with THIS particular opponent.

It AIN'T right but it's GONNA happen.

After reading all comments on "torture," up to this point, I have to say that Pam said it best. 
I could write 3 pages on torture and I wouldn't come up with anything better than what Pam just stated in three sentences.  Listen, I bounced around with our government for over thirty years and I KNOW what the hell is going on behind the curtain when it come to making our enemies pop their cookies.  We are experts at this and as long as we are at war it will go on, no matter who thinks it is wrong or who thinks he/they, (Attorney General Eric Holder and federal prosecutor John Durham and company) can stop it....  it's necessary and anyone who thinks it isn't, is a damn fool!  It is 'whatever it takes', PERIOD.  Four U.S. troops died yesterday.  We are at war and if it takes torture to save American lives, I say, bring it on!   

Remember, we are at war, people.... whatever it takes to save lives.

"Victory at all costs, Victory in spite of all terror, Victory however long and hard the road may be; for without Victory, there is no survival." ...Winston Churchill


"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." ....George S. Patton


BTW....Billy's 100% right in his post this morning, "Is It Any Wonder ....obama and his adminstration, in a move that has become their signature play, needs something to divert American attention away from what they are doing." ....because ObamaHealthCare sucks and he knows it will not pass if he doesn't come up with something to turn attention away from the Health Care issue.  I predict that Attorney General Eric Holder will be the most hated man in America by Christmas if he goes through with his investigation of the CIA.