Renditions

[Charity Case]

alot of people here seem to think that just because the majority agrees with something that its suddenly ok. Which is one of the most basic fallacies you'll ever encounter. Just because the majority condone torture doesnt make it true based on that.

In a civilized society torture is wrong in any situation. By torturing others you lose the arguement with the terrorists.

Great point.  And just because the majority doesn't like the job Bush is doing doesn't mean he isn't doing a good job.

As for torture being wrong in any situation....well you're wrong.  If it could save thousands of lives, it is the right thing to do.  As a matter of fact, it is the civilized thing to do.

[Booker Floyd]

As for torture being wrong in any situation....well you're wrong.? If it could save thousands of lives, it is the right thing to do.?

And it could cost thousands of lives...

[Sterlingdog]

So who is it that is stupid enough to believe we shouldn't torture al kazawi if we find him to try to learn as much as we can about the terrorist network? ?I'll tell you what. ?If we find him, some moronic left wing fanatic will be against torturing him. ?Crazy isn't it.

I'm against it, no matter who it is. ?And I'm not a left wing fanatic. ?And I'm not afraid of you calling me stupid. What's crazy is behaving like an animal, or worse than an animal, and blaming it on the behavior of others.

[2NaFish]

alot of people here seem to think that just because the majority agrees with something that its suddenly ok. Which is one of the most basic fallacies you'll ever encounter. Just because the majority condone torture doesnt make it true based on that.

In a civilized society torture is wrong in any situation. By torturing others you lose the arguement with the terrorists.

Great point. And just because the majority doesn't like the job Bush is doing doesn't mean he isn't doing a good job.

As for torture being wrong in any situation....well you're wrong. If it could save thousands of lives, it is the right thing to do. As a matter of fact, it is the civilized thing to do.

No. Its an objective moral truth that torture is wrong. The situation doesnt enter in to it.

And reversely on the first point, just because the majority dont like the job bush is doing doesnt mean he is doing a good job. My point, which obviously you missed, is that the view of the masses has no basis on the objective morality of the question.

[Jamie]

We may make mistakes, but comparing us to Europe and placing us behind it is just wrong.

Being from Europe I take offence to that statement. What is it America has done so right, and Europe has done so wrong to warrant such a statement?

So who is it that is stupid enough to believe we shouldn't torture al kazawi if we find him to try to learn as much as we can about the terrorist network?  I'll tell you what.  If we find him, some moronic left wing fanatic will be against torturing him.  Crazy isn't it.

I would be "stupid" enough to believe that. And you know why? The nations that are in Iraq are fighting to end what they deem a barbaric and brutal regeime of terror, correct? All torture is doing is bringing the nations in Iraq down to the level of the terrorists, does it make sense to you to invade a country to end a regeime based on terror and torture, and use the exact same tactics as they do? Terrorism to fight terrorism? Makes no sense. And despite that, it is actually surprising what someone might say under torture, even if those things aren't true. It was a tactic (secretly) introduced by the English during the troubles in Ireland and lead to the conviction of a large number of innocent people for acts of terrorism that they did not commit. Who's to say the same will not happen in Iraq?

[Charity Case]

We may make mistakes, but comparing us to Europe and placing us behind it is just wrong.

Being from Europe I take offence to that statement. What is it America has done so right, and Europe has done so wrong to warrant such a statement?

I wrote that in response to an equally offensive statement by someone else.  Read the thread.  And if you want me to list all the things that America has done right it would take years to do so.

No offnse, but you are wrong.  Using some idealistic rhetoric as an excuse to not torture al zakawi is a joke.  The whole "don't bring us down to the level of the terrorists" talk is short sighted.  If torturing one man can save thousands, you do it.  No questions asked.  And in the case of al zakawi, you do it on principle alone.  He is responsible to attacking and killing innocent civilians during wartime.  Get off your high horse and join reality.

As for wrongful convictions, that's up to the investigations that follow up the torture to shake out.  If after we investiage we find someone innocent, then fine.

[Jamie]

I wrote that in response to an equally offensive statement by someone else.? Read the thread.? And if you want me to list all the things that America has done right it would take years to do so.

I have read the thread and am aware of the statement that was directed at the US to which you responded. And I agree it was out of line, but I'm not American so it's not my duty to dispute it, you disputed it and I respect you for defending your own country. What I took offence to is that you replied with an equally offensive statement, that I as a member of the European community felt it was my duty to dispute as you did previously. But note, I did not dispute an offensive statement with another offensive statement. And I am also aware that America has done a lot of great things on a world wide scale, but they have also contributed negatively, as have Europe.

No offnse, but you are wrong. Using some idealistic rhetoric as an excuse to not torture al zakawi is a joke.

I disagree, using a tactic to counter an enemy that you are fighting for using that very tactic (amongst others) is hypocritical, and on top of that, when considering that that tactic is torture is also immoral. That would be like FORCING a slave to fight for freedom. It just doesn't make sense.

The whole "don't bring us down to the level of the terrorists" talk is short sighted.

It is not an issue of short-sightedness, it is an issue of morals and pride, fighting terrorism and torture with terrorism and torture is nothing short of hypocrisy. And how can the west claim some sort of moral superiority over everyone else, as it does, when they use the exact same tactics as the terrorists that they claim are ruining their lifestyle? And how do you think the Iraqi people will react to that, if they see their "liberators" partake in, let's say, methods of persuasion, that they have suffered under for so long, and that the Americans are telling them they are there to end?

If torturing one man can save thousands, you do it. No questions asked.

What about the question of "is he guilty?" or "has he been convicted?" or "what evidence is there to show that this man is a terrorist?" or the question of "are this man's human rights being violated?" I mean what's the use of having human rights if they can simply be disregarded in certain cases? And what if you torture one man extensively and then discover that he is 100% innocent, will it be a case of "oh sorry wrong guy have a nice day!"? I don't think so.

And in the case of al zakawi, you do it on principle alone. He is responsible to attacking and killing innocent civilians during wartime. Get off your high horse and join reality.

So you torture a man that is responsible for the torture of others? How about you try a man fairly who is quite obviously responsible for this torture and punish him accordingly in the court of law? it's constitutional and leaves a lot less guilt and consequence on the shoulders of America who are already under a lot of pressure and are being met with international suspicion over a war that many feel should never have happened and give the US a chance to redeem itself in the eyes of the international public. If Al Zakawi is so blatantly guilty of these horrific crimes there is not a judge and jury in the world that would not convict him, so why the insecurity and the overwhelming urge to torture?

As for wrongful convictions, that's up to the investigations that follow up the torture to shake out. If after we investiage we find someone innocent, then fine.

If investigations follow that will lead to conviction, why torture in the first place? You torture someone, they admit to guilt, which may not necessarily be the truth, and then you go and try them anyway? What's the point?

[Sterlingdog]

Good points, Jamie.

Charity Case - you don't think morals matter in this case, ok.? You think there is no problem in torturing someone if it means it will save American lives.? But why on earth would you expect to get valuable or even remotely correct information from someone in that situation?? Someone being tortured will say anything to get it to stop, they don't care if its true, they just tell you what you want to hear.? You think there is no reason not to torture someone, I say there is no reason to torture someone.? I think you watch too many movies.?

[Booker Floyd]

Someone being tortured will say anything to get it to stop, they don't care if its true, they just tell you what you want to hear.? You think there is no reason not to torture someone, I say there is no reason to torture someone.? I think you watch too many movies.?

From the article I posted (in case Charity missed it):

THE Bush Administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment.

Current and former government officials say the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts of ties that included training in explosives and chemical weapons only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the US in January 2002.

The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the Administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of al-Qaeda members and others seized as part of US counter-terrorism efforts

[pilferk]

No offnse, but you are wrong.? Using some idealistic rhetoric as an excuse to not torture al zakawi is a joke.? The whole "don't bring us down to the level of the terrorists" talk is short sighted.? If torturing one man can save thousands, you do it.? No questions asked.? And in the case of al zakawi, you do it on principle alone.? He is responsible to attacking and killing innocent civilians during wartime.? Get off your high horse and join reality.

No, sir, you are wrong.? Wrong headed, wrong acting, and just flat out wrong.

You want to say that "bringing us down to the terrorists level" talk is shortsighted? It's anything but.? But you have no counter for the argument, so would rather ignore it.? I'm not surprised.

And Shortsighted?? How's this for shortsighted.

If we do torture people, everyone gets to do it.? EVERYONE.? You're saying it's OK for OTHER nations, if they think torturing one of our citizens, soldiers, etc will "save their citizens lives".

Remember, what we do has GLOBAL implications and ramifications.? Are YOU willing to live with them?

I rather doubt you are.

[shades]

nobody is condoning torture.
If these thugs were in a uniform, identifiable as 'the enemy'.
It would be an entirely different ballgame.
But their not, how can you not see the difference.
The thugs look and act like, in an instant, the innocent majority just trying to stay out of the way.

Would you not think that would call for mistakenly detaining a few people until their identity and intentions are verified.
Dont act stupid.
A liberal just doesnt think before he speaks, thats really your biggest fault.

If you were in harms way, which you obviously would never put yourself into, (its called having a yellow belly if your interested in labeling your attitude)
you would understand that erring on the side of caution is necessary in a war against an enemy that blends into the innocent population.

[pilferk]

International law, including the U.N. Convention against Torture, bans torture in all cases.

For those that are somehow confused.....

[shades]

The UN is a spineless politicaly motivated waste of time.
In case you havnt been paying attention over the last few years.

And i would call for an immediate withdrawal and not look back.
If they meant what they say, or said what the meant they would serve a purpose.
Otherwise

[SLCPUNK]

The UN is a spineless politicaly motivated waste of time.
In case you havnt been paying attention over the last few years.

You are a spineless coward behind a computer...........

Here is how your group of thugs operate:


*************

An Ethiopian claims that his confession to al-Qaeda bomb plot was signed after beatings, reports David Rose in New York

Sunday December 11, 2005
The Observer

An Ethiopian student who lived in London claims that he was brutally tortured with the involvement of British and US intelligence agencies.

Binyam Mohammed, 27, says he spent nearly three years in the CIA's network of 'black sites'. In Morocco he claims he underwent the strappado torture of being hung for hours from his wrists, and scalpel cuts to his chest and penis and that a CIA officer was a regular interrogator.

After his capture in Pakistan, Mohammed says British officials warned him that he would be sent to a country where torture was used. Moroccans also asked him detailed questions about his seven years in London, which his lawyers believe came from British sources.

Western agencies believed that he was part of a plot to buy uranium in Asia, bring it to the US and build a 'dirty bomb' in league with Jose Padilla, a US citizen. Mohammed signed a confession but told his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, he had never met Padilla, or anyone in al-Qaeda. Padilla spent almost four years in American custody, accused of the plot. Last month, after allegations of the torture used against Mohammed emerged, the claims against Padilla were dropped. He now faces a civil charge of supporting al-Qaeda financially.

A senior US intelligence official told The Observer that the CIA is now in 'deep crisis' following last week's international political storm over the agency's practice of 'extraordinary rendition' - transporting suspects to countries where they face torture. 'The smarter people in the Directorate of Operations [the CIA's clandestine operational arm] know that one day, if they do this stuff, they are going to face indictment,' he said. 'They are simply refusing to participate in these operations, and if they don't have big mortgage or tuition fees to pay they're thinking about trying to resign altogether.'

Already 22 CIA officers have been charged in absentia in Italy for alleged roles in the rendition of a radical cleric, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, seized - without the knowledge of the Italian government - on a Milan street in February 2003.

The intense pressure on US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week, coupled with Friday's condemnation of the use of evidence extracted under torture by the House of Lords, has intensified concerns within the CIA. The official said: 'Renditions and torture aren't just wrong, they also expose CIA personnel and diplomats abroad to enormous future risk.'

Mohammed arrived in Britain in 1994. He lived in Wornington Road, North Kensington, and studied at Paddington Green College. For most of this time, said his brother, he rarely went to a mosque. However, in early 2001 he became more religious.

The Observer has obtained fresh details of his case which was first publicised last summer. He went to Pakistan in June 2001 because, he says, he had a drug problem and wanted to kick the habit. He was arrested on 10 April at the airport on his way back to England because of an alleged passport irregularity. Initially interrogated by Pakistani and British officials, he told Stafford Smith: 'The British checked out my story and said they knew I was a nobody. They said they would tell the Americans.'

He was questioned by the FBI and began to hear accusations of terror involvement. He says he also met two MI6 officers. One told him he would be tortured in an Arab country.

The interrogations intensified and he says he was taken to Islamabad; then, in July 2002, on a CIA flight to Morocco. His description of the process matches independent reports. Masked officers wore black. They stripped him, subjected him to a full body search and shackled him to his seat wearing a nappy.

In Morocco he was told he had plotted with Padilla and had dinner in Pakistan with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the planner of 9/11, and other al-Qaeda chiefs. 'I've never met anyone like these people,' Mohammed told Stafford Smith. 'How could I? I speak no Arabic... I never heard Padilla's name until they told me.'

During almost 18 months of regular beatings in Morocco, Mohammed says he frequently met a blonde woman in her thirties who told him she was Canadian. The US intelligence officer told The Observer this was an 'amateurish' CIA cover. 'The only Americans who historically pretended to be Canadian were backpackers travelling in Europe during the Vietnam war. Apart from the moral issues, what disturbs me is that, as an attempt to create plausible deniability, this is so damn transparent.'

According to Mohammed, he was threatened with electrocution and rape. On one occasion, he was handcuffed when three men entered his cell wearing black masks. 'That day I ceased really knowing I was alive. One stood on each of my shoulders and a third punched me in the stomach. It seemed to go on for hours. I was meant to stand, but I was in so much pain I'd fall to my knees. They'd pull me back up and hit me again. They'd kick me in the thighs as I got up. I could see the hands that were hitting me... like the hands of someone who'd worked as a mechanic or chopped with an axe.'

Later he was confronted with details of his London life - such as the name of his kickboxing teacher - and met a Moroccan calling himself Marwan, who ordered him to be hung by his wrists. 'They hit me in the chest, the stomach, and they knocked my feet from under me. I have a shoulder pain to this day from the wrenching as my arms were almost pulled out of their sockets.'

Another time, he told Stafford Smith: 'They took a scalpel to my right chest. It was only a small cut. Then they cut my left chest. One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute watching. I was in agony, crying, trying desperately to suppress myself, but I was screaming... They must have done this 20 to 30 times in maybe two hours. There was blood all over.'

In September he was taken to Guantanamo Bay where he has been charged with involvement in al-Qaeda plots and faces trial there by military commission. Stafford Smith said: 'I am unaware of any evidence against him other than that extracted under torture.'

The Foreign Office, the Moroccan Embassy and the CIA refused to comment yesterday.

[shades]

Give it a rest, you and your views are one big joke.
Put some clown makeup on and go earn some money.

[Jamie]

Give it a rest, you and your views are one big joke.
Put some clown makeup on and go earn some money.

What sort of response is that? An article is presented with overwhelming accounts of brutality that completely defies the argument you have gone with for this whole thread and that's all you come up with, just swallow your pride and say you are wrong.

[shades]

Oh stop already,
"they took a scalpel to his penis"

"frequently met  a blonde woman in her thirties, told him she was Canadian"

'The British checked out my story and said they knew I was a nobody. They said they would tell the Americans"

Did you guys read Stephen Kings latest novel?
You shopuld pick it up, its so much better than this one.

Im going to have to stop any sort of meaningful debate with the liberals on here if you keep this up.
Its embarrasing.
Come on, you're joking right?

[gilld1]

When did you start a meaningful debate?  All you do is agitate and dodge the real questions.  Most of your statements make your own side look hopelessly clueless.  If your goal is to persuade then you are way off, if your goal is to annoy and make yourself look like an ass then "Mission Accomplished", moron.

[Jamie]

Oh stop already,
"they took a scalpel to his penis"

Oh yeah, that's the way to do it, just completely disregard anything that looks damaging to your argument and say it's a falsehood. How do you know there wasn't a scalpel taken to his penis? Considering the pictures released (and you know the ones I'm refering to) a couple of years ago now I wouldn't be surprised.

"frequently met a blonde woman in her thirties, told him she was Canadian"

Yeah, is a blonde Canadian woman such a rarity that this man would immediately say, "hold on a minute, she must be working for the CIA", and don't try to say the CIA has or would never employ someone to go undercover, they're an intelligence agency for Christ's sake!

'The British checked out my story and said they knew I was a nobody. They said they would tell the Americans"

May or may not have been said, but that's not the real issue here is it?

Did you guys read Stephen Kings latest novel?
You shopuld pick it up, its so much better than this one.

Oh really?! I'll have to get that one so.

Im going to have to stop any sort of meaningful debate with the liberals on here if you keep this up.
Its embarrasing.
Come on, you're joking right?

Oh yeah, say's he who posted this:

Give it a rest, you and your views are one big joke.
Put some clown makeup on and go earn some money.

Very meaningful, intelligent thought must have gone into that one. Archimedes has nothing on you.

[Booker Floyd]

Did you guys read Stephen Kings latest novel?
You shopuld pick it up, its so much better than this one.

your basing your beliefs on a Stephen King Novel and your little cronnies are verifiing it.
funny shit

does the Stephen King novel roll into a circle about the size of ...say ?your recycleing shute

Im going to have to stop any sort of meaningful debate with the liberals on here if you keep this up.

You can stop trying at least...youre not very good at it.

Come on, you're joking right?

That seems to be your line everytime...

And if you actually think the US pays journalists to write articles spinning the war.

 what am I dealing with here.

let me guess
UFO's right?

But you never responded when it was proven that the U.S. was paying journalists to spin the war. ?Just like you never responded to my posts asking you to explain your own conspiracy theory against Harriet Miers.