US legalised torture.

[Dradam]

I have only been able to find this mentioned in a closed thread where a rant was being made about the bush administration...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

When i read about how this was used on modern day captives i was apalled by it because in my opinion it is a form of torture, and therefore is a breach of human rights and should be made illegal in all countries.

I guess the main debate over this, is whether or not you believe it is torture, whether torture should be allowed in order to gain information in modern society, or whether the bush administration has made a big moral mistake with this?

[Manchester Black]

It may not be the same type of torture that most people are used to seeing. It is still a form of torture though. But to be honest, if it's being used on terrorists to gain information; who cares. The terrorists have done far worse things to their captives, so if we have to pour some water on their face to get the location of one of their buddies, so be it.

[Dradam]

That is a very dangerous thing to say, what you have to remember was that it has been used on alleged terrorists. The driver of a suspected al Qaeda vehicle for example? It was used on him in order to try and make him confess to having knowledge of an incident.

"against 'suspected' members of al Qaeda." - Its not just being used against confirmed terrorists, its being used against those who they think could be terrorists, which could be anyone, they could walk into any house and lift anybody, and claim that they were a terrorist and subject them to this torture.
As for who cares about the terrorists, ffs man, shall we take the same view over all criminals?
Oh it doesn't matter if he stole a loaf of bread to live, we'll torture him any way. It still breaches basic human rights.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.

[Manchester Black]

That is a very dangerous thing to say, what you have to remember was that it has been used on alleged terrorists. The driver of a suspected al Qaeda vehicle for example? It was used on him in order to try and make him confess to having knowledge of an incident.

"against 'suspected' members of al Qaeda." - Its not just being used against confirmed terrorists, its being used against those who they think could be terrorists, which could be anyone, they could walk into any house and lift anybody, and claim that they were a terrorist and subject them to this torture.

They still got important information from it. So obviously those people knew something. Also, it's not like they randomly walk around to people's houses and just yank them out and say "Hmm, I think you're a terrorist". They use intelligence agencies to gather information, and pinpoint people who are either definately, or most likely involved in terrorism or with terrorists.

As for who cares about the terrorists, ffs man, shall we take the same view over all criminals?
Oh it doesn't matter if he stole a loaf of bread to live, we'll torture him any way. It still breaches basic human rights.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.

Way to comepletely over exaggerate.

[VampyreLord]

Eh? Laughing man - the central flaw in your argument is that you are assuming that everyone the government has picked up and has stashed away in their little concentration camps are genuine terrorists - given that:

a) Most of the people in there were brought to the authorities by bounty hunters
b) The general incompetence of the current administration is frankly staggering
c) The majority of Guantanamo inmates have (finally) been released without charge

all seriously undermine the suggestion that ANY of the people locked up in Guantanamo are terrorists (one guy was a British tourist)

Oh, and out of interest, do you have an example of where torture has lead to the emergence of reliable, useful evidence?

[Dradam]

Ok, then what about the people who are taken to other countries outside of the US are tortured there and rarely seen again?
I think that this gives the US leave to lift pretty much anyone they want, claim that they are terrorists, torture them, If they get any useful info then they can roll with it and make use of it. If they don't then they can just publish a press report saying that they helped assist in the capture of a senior Al Qaeda figure or other terrorist, and get away with it without any problems.
Leaves people far too exposed, like the internment in Northern Ireland.

Vampy: I was agreeing with you...
We posted at the same time, after i posted and the page refreshed your post appeared above mine... : P
But since it was still relevant i didn't delete it.

[Reyin]

a) Most of the people in there were brought to the authorities by bounty hunters
c) The majority of Guantanamo inmates have (finally) been released without charge


What you said is dead-on as far as where the problem lies. As for the incompetence of the administration, this is probably one of the only places where I'd agree with you on that. The way the whole Guan. Bay operation has been run from the beginning of this conflict is just plain lazy. If we are indeed going to use more draconian methods of interrogation, then the filter for choosing between inmates needs to be extremely narrow. Torture is not just some casual practice that should be thrown on every inmate going through the system, or even every-other. In reality the only people that should be approved are the people we already know, without a doubt have important information.

This is all assuming we can rely on what is derived from torture anyways. The fact of the matter is, torture is probably the most extreme form of duress on the planet.

[Manchester Black]

Ok, then what about the people who are taken to other countries outside of the US are tortured there and rarely seen again?
I think that this gives the US leave to lift pretty much anyone they want, claim that they are terrorists, torture them, If they get any useful info then they can roll with it and make use of it. If they don't then they can just publish a press report saying that they helped assist in the capture of a senior Al Qaeda figure or other terrorist, and get away with it without any problems.
Leaves people far too exposed, like the internment in Northern Ireland.

Let's not forget what the topic is here. We aren't debating the morality behind the methods used by the US to capture terrorists.

I do agree that waterboarding is torture, but I don't think it's so bad that the US shouldn't use it to get information from possible terroists.

[VampyreLord]

My line:

If torture regularly works at getting accurate useful information (ie, information which can save lives), and we can be sure that those subjected to torture are genuine terrorists, then it is the government's duty to use it.

HOWEVER, the essential problems are that we can't really be sure that any of the people we've picked up can even spell Jihad, let alone being members of Islamist militias, not to mention that the caliber information collected under duress is notoriously dodgy - the poor sod will give you any old rubbish to get you to remove the red hot poker...