CIA prisoners 'tortured' in Arab jails

I have to disagree with you with that last statement. Dropping bombs on entire cities of innocent civilians is an entirely different matter than using torture to get information from suspected terrorists. And we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. I'd much rather see my government engaged in the torture of people they think have knowledge that could lead to a faster end to the war, or the prevention of more loss of life than to see us randomly dropping bombs on middle eastern cities.

Unfortunately I'm working at speeds of 45.2kbps...so often someone answers my post before I even have a chance to edit and add to my post.

I was not suggesting we drop bombs...I was saying that sometimes it is necessary to take a life to save many other lives.

And you're right...torture solely for the purpose of gaining information is different...however we hope the result will be the same...that the information will save lives.

Torture again, is never justified ! Now we have to ask the question of where do you draw the line between interegation and torture?

I'm working at 49.2 kbps, so I'm not far ahead of you :p

I think that 'drawing a line' is almost impossible to do. There's never going to be black and white in any situation, and the gradations of gray are different to everyone. Personally, I'm a big baby, and I can't even watch violent movies because they upset me. My line for where torture starts is going to be totally different than someone else's. Your idea of torture and mine are probably different. I guarantee that my idea of torture differs from the average Intel soldier.

Torturing people to get information from them, is like the dunking tests used by nitwits in the fifteenth century to determine whether someone was a witch: if you drown, we were wrong because you seem not to be a witch. If you survive, we'll have to burn you alive, for you are a witch.
It took people a couple of years to realize how retarded it was. And now everybody realizes it, but they're still using the dunking test...

"Are you a terrorist?"
- No, sir, I am not!
"We'll have to kill you for lying!"

"Are you a terrorist?"
- Yes, yes, I am! Now stop torturing me!
"We'll have to kill you for being a terrorist"

Catch-22 and dunking test all over again...

I think that's over-simplifying a bit, at best Negative. I'm assuming if they're in custody, and in danger of being tortured, it's presumed they are terrorists. The point is, what information can we get from them with the benefit of torture. For me, the motivation to give accurate information in hopes that no one else is going to apply electricity to my genitals would be fairly high. Then again, there are very few causes I'm willing to die for, and that's where I differ from the average terrorist, too.

Quote:

---

One day, after 18 hours of torture, he falsely confessed to having been to Afghanistan.

---

"Have you ever been to Afghanistan?"
- No, sir, I haven't!"
"OK, then we'll have to keep on torturing you"

"Have you ever been to Afghanistan?"
- Yes, sir, I have!
"OK, now we can keep you in jail for a while"

How effective is that...

Sounds like my local sheriffs dept :rolleyes:

That's basically what they do, they keep blabbing and accusing until they find something that sounds like probable cause enough to take you in.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by debwalin
...it's presumed they are terrorists.

---

That is my nightmare. Who presumed? your favorite army officer? And if, lets say, he presumes that you are a terrorist? How do you feel to be stripped off your rights, tortured for days?

Its like death' penalty: one mistake (killing an innocent) will dismantle the entire benefit of "removal" of one million of terrorists, homicides and so on.

If just ONE INNOCENT is enprisioned and tortured, we just loosed our souls. So, its better to stay away from that.

Im looking for an article that i've read years ago - i think its abour Red Khmer - they had tortured Children. why? because they (Children) were "terrorists".

Im a father. I cant imagine who can do it to another human being, for whatever reason. a child?

When you put your head on the mouth of the Lion, you cant expect that he stay with it open forever.

Cacosapo brings up a very good point in do you want to be part of a society that
condoned torture yesterday, acceptes torture today and expects torture tomorrow. It is a natural eveloution. Let take the example of the tim Cat stevens was refused enterance in to the states. If he was just your typical joe soap he would not only have been refused access to the usa he quite probably been sent first to egypt to be "questionned and then after been held in some case for months to guantamo to await a trial that would never happen.
Another point which I feel should be mentioned is that the CIa is basically out-sourcing the torture. I always felt a man should shoot his own dog as they say. I suppose the reasons behind it are political. That way the administration can always say that they never authorised any americains to use torture. I find it hypocritical at the very least. On that point one of the only detainees from Guantamo to have been allowed a fair trail was an americain citizen.
As for information recieved under torture how reliable is it? How many people are you allowed torture and detain by mistake for each time you are right?