PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical based on the weeks terror cell arrests.



MountainMan
09-26-2009, 01:37 PM
I'm throwing this out there to see how many honest people we have who oppose "enhanced interrogation techniques". This question is based on the four separate terrorist arrests this last week in the US. It appears that connections to Pakistan are well defined and it was also made clear that the investigations prior to these arrests started over a year ago. This isn't to praise the Bush administration but to set a time line. Clearly these arrests are good and it appears that many people have been saved. So here is the hypothetical.

Should these terrorist suspects be let go IF it has been determined that we waterboarded someone in Afghanistan and that waterboarding, over a year ago gave our intelligence and law enforcement the leads to find and follow these cells?

and for what its worth, I also posted it over at NU.....

Rockntractor
09-26-2009, 01:45 PM
What site is NU?

MountainMan
09-26-2009, 01:46 PM
What site is NU?

Unless you like beating your head up against a rock, don't bother........... :p

Rockntractor
09-26-2009, 01:50 PM
Unless you like beating your head up against a rock, don't bother........... :p
I'm quite literally beating myself up with rocks this very moment!

RobJohnson
09-26-2009, 01:54 PM
What site is NU?


http://www.neutralunderground.com/forum/

AmPat
09-26-2009, 02:13 PM
I'm throwing this out there to see how many honest people we have who oppose "enhanced interrogation techniques". .........................
Should these terrorist suspects be let go IF it has been determined that we waterboarded someone in Afghanistan and that waterboarding, over a year ago gave our intelligence and law enforcement the leads to find and follow these cells?
.....

This is most likely a result of the domestic surveillence/wiretapping and old fashioned police work rather than interrogation. He travelled to Pockistaan(OBlah Blah pronunciation) afterall.

MountainMan
09-27-2009, 01:47 PM
This is most likely a result of the domestic surveillence/wiretapping and old fashioned police work rather than interrogation. He travelled to Pockistaan(OBlah Blah pronunciation) afterall.

Which is why I made it a hypothetical about waterboarding.

Are there any supporters of Obama and his ideals that would take this on?

Bubba Dawg
09-27-2009, 03:35 PM
I am not a supporter of Obama.

I would not release these suspects if the intelligence techniques used to gain some, or all, of the information leading to their arrest came from enhanced interrogation techniques. In other words, I would not call it fruit from a poisoned tree.

And here is where I reveal myself to be a hypocrite: I would end the practice of enhanced interrogation techniques because they are illegal.

I doubt that the intelligence that lead to the arrest of these suspects came from such enhanced techniques, but it may have.

The legal and moral issues of our use of torture disturb me.

MrsSmith
09-27-2009, 08:02 PM
If the guidelines actually allowed torture, this might be a pertinant question. As it is, the guidelines very clearly allowed causing discomfort or fear, but not torture.

Jfor
09-28-2009, 09:49 AM
One would have to believe that enhanced interrogation techniques are torture to begin with. I think that a lot of what we are starting to see are the tangos testing whether or not this president has the balls like the previous president did. Our folks who are charge with protecting this country are working with their hands tied behind their back. We are showing weakness in this country because of who was elected. Elections have consequences.

stsinner
09-28-2009, 09:57 AM
I'm not against harsh interrogation techniques.. I think that you do what you need to do to make people talk, and you don't tell the world about it. These people want to kill innocent Americans, and they are very brutal. They cut the heads off of innocents, and we are banning waterboarding? We waterboard our own Seals in training...

Gingersnap
09-28-2009, 10:15 AM
Scaring terrorists, threatening their families, depriving them of sleep, or making them think that they are going to drown don't strike me as torture in the same sense as amputating fingers, rape, electrical shocks/burns, or starving people into submission.

If it only works 10% of the time, it's worth it when the stakes are massive explosions that kill thousands.

FreeAmerican
09-28-2009, 12:22 PM
Scaring terrorists, threatening their families, depriving them of sleep, or making them think that they are going to drown don't strike me as torture in the same sense as amputating fingers, rape, electrical shocks/burns, or starving people into submission.

If it only works 10% of the time, it's worth it when the stakes are massive explosions that kill thousands.

I don't understand how anyone with a pulse could disagree.

pssvr
09-28-2009, 03:10 PM
I have no moral compunction against torturing, killing, mutilating, or otherwise inflicting substantial physical and psychological damage on the people who are provably responsible for mass murders.

As a caveat, I have to wonder how well-proved the allegations against some of these people are when they are brought in for interrogation. The thought of torturing a man to confession only to find out later that he was in fact innocent, or perhaps guilty but of a less heinous crime than we believed, leads me to still place heavy emphasis on the importance of strict procedural regulations. Remember that there are racist or otherwise irrational cops and investigators and, even though most of the stories of police and FBI brutality are a load of crap, some aren't.

Jfor
09-28-2009, 03:58 PM
Again, if you believe sleep deprivation, water boarding, pretending to drill somebody head with a cordless Dewalt drill or blowing smoke in someone's face is torture. It is not and we should use every means possible to protect American lives as I believe American lives are greater than anybody else's.