This story is archived
Should the U.S. Military Be Allowed to Use Torture? »
Posted by: populist 3 years agoIf the Bill of Rights isn't adhered to, if the accused isn't given the privileges accorded therein, it's too easy to convict the wrong person - thus allowing the guilty party to go free and continue to commit crimes. So the Bill of Rights doesn't just protect the rights of the innocent, it is also enhances the security of the community.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 472
-
inaroundabout
Oct. 26, 2006, 1:35 a.m.A good logical argument for why the use of torture is not only cruel but also ineffective.
-
NemoShiZniTComment has been removed: User banned.
-
-
Lurch
Oct. 26, 2006, 1:45 a.m.Second, if the Bill of Rights isn't adhered to, if the accused isn't given the privileges accorded therein, it's too easy to convict the wrong person - thus allowing the guilty party to go free and continue to commit crimes. So the Bill of Rights doesn't just protect the rights of the innocent, it is also enhances the security of the community.
Nuff said.
-
tehranchik
Oct. 26, 2006, 2:19 a.m.Torture is the behavior of a third world uneducated populace. A terrorist. I guess we are becoming terrorists.
-
-
fruitysnapple
Oct. 26, 2006, 12:44 p.m.You are a fool you stupid pumpkin ass torture is neccessary if we want to win this war do you want us to lose do you want even more to do do your research and stop trying to be a pumpkin
-
-
posthumous
Oct. 26, 2006, 2:34 a.m.This a simplistic argument on its face, it contends that the bill of rights does not name what people yet the people and purpose are clearly laid out in the constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Nope no terrorist mentioned there!
As for torture, there is a big difference between torture and interrogation. And if you wish to argue the point I ask why Charles Granger was allowed to serve with the U.S. Army in Iraq, even though he was known to have abused/tortured U.S. citizens in a U.S. prison?
I have yet to hear any outrage over that, why?
-
populist
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:38 a.m.yes, a couple hundred years ago some people created a constitution - which was simply (or simplistic to you) a set of guidelines of how the US Federal Government would act and what it could do. The bill of rights does not exclude those liberties - it does not give liberty to certain people, or certain groups. The bill of rights is the absolute MANDATE of how the US government is to treat all people.
Unfortunately tyrants have always used your argument - that it only applied to certain people. From that kind of argument, an entire race of people (American Indians) was nearly eliminated, & another (African Americans) was enslaved.
Now, people like yourself say that there's an "implied" meaning & that only citizens of the US deserve liberty, & that the US government doesn't have to act as a beacon of that liberty for ALL people it reaches.
Readers, do not believe such lies, for these are the lies of tyrants, despots and murderers throughout history.
-
koranagirl
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:43 a.m.it's never too late to prosecute for torture. you will need to contact the local FBI for that. they deal in interstate and international crime. if you need help with this, post his name and address and the address of the local FBI and i'm sure everyone on this site will support you on that!
-
Bopi365
Oct. 26, 2006, 1:17 p.m.outrage regarding isolated instances maybe not
but outrage over institutional and systematic abuses of the bill of rights
yes
-
donald51
Oct. 26, 2006, 1:44 p.m.Postumous,
Our president has called this war an ideological war, and he has also said that he wants to treat people of other nations as human beings too. Ideological war is winning the hearts and minds like a counter-insurgency war - so why does Dubya give up the high moral ground and stoop to torture, pre-emptive war, political assassination, and foreign prisons? He calls it an ideological war, yet he gives away the high ideological moral ground - more fuel for the terrorists to hate us. On the second point Bush is just plain lying or he would know how many Iraqis have really been killed by US Forces. Clinton at least had the military trying to separate out the innocent with more emphasis on new combat identification systems and procedures, and every life was considered precious and accounted for.
-
populist
Oct. 26, 2006, 2:12 p.m.wrong.
it was "we the people of the united states" that created the constitution. They did not - however - make any statement that said only certain people have liberty.
In fact, the rights of people are "inalienable" and not given to us by any government. They are ours based on us being human.
therefore, neither the US government, nor ANY government has any right to take away the liberty of ANY person.
period.
-
populist
Oct. 26, 2006, 2:15 p.m.by this statement, you are also saying that before 1868 (the year that "citizenship" was formally defined with the 14th amendment) - no one had rights.
Because, according to you, liberty is given to us by the US government. Instead of the other way around.
You couldn't be more wrong.
-
-
lovelytxwoman
Oct. 26, 2006, 2:57 a.m.Whatever if they talk that what matters to me! Torture my ass they get to behead us and mutilate us,but we are to hug and coddle them forget that! Is that how we protect our children from the evils in this world?
-
-
populist
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:40 a.m.protect your children by being a good parent. teach your children about their liberty and how to defend themselves. and teach your children to be strong, rather than cowards. only cowards would want to torture to get guilty pleas.
But then again, maybe you're the kind that doesn't care if we're safe....because the danger of potentially false guilty pleas is quite clear.
-
koranagirl
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:44 a.m.if laws mean nothing to you, then can i come and steal your cash and your car today? see my comment below.
-
twincats
Oct. 26, 2006, 11:54 a.m.I've said this before, I'll say it again: If those prosecuting, whether it be US Govt. or US military has a good enough case, there is NO need to suspend due process. It is only when prosecutors have a weak case or none at all, that they need to cheat.
And what about the part of the preamble that says all are created equal?? Not just Americans, not just our allies, but EVERYONE whether we like them or not, whether we agree with them or not.
As for torture, to say that "well, they did it first" is a school yard justification that didn't work in second grade and doesn't work now. The teacher always would always tell the kid if they did it, too, they were just as guilty.
-
-
Lurch
Oct. 26, 2006, 3:13 a.m.ltw,
If memory serves, they actually returned our soldiers that they captured, unharmed, in the beginning. Ask Lindie England.
Rummy, on the other hand, went right to work in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Somewhere between 12 and 38 iraqis in american custody were tortured to death. Many have confessed to things they had no physical way of doing because they were proven to be somewhere else - but the torture made them confess to something they didn`t do. Our intelligence resources have complained about that. Too many false positives, too much risk for our soldiers and citizens, and no where near enough benefit.
The Brits stopped an even bigger plot than 9/11. And they sure as he11 didn`t do it by torture - they did it using good old fashioned intelligence/spying.
There is no proven benefit to torture, especially after the first 24 hours or so. America has been doing it to some for weeks, months, or even years. What a waste of our resources and a great recruiting tool for our enemy.
-
-
froggs09
Oct. 27, 2006, 12:10 a.m.Lurch you stupid ass, Lindie England was a guard at Abu Gharib. She was prosecuted for her behaviour. Jessica Lynch was captured buy Iraqi soldiers and we had to kill them to get her back! some people don't know and don't care what they say as lond as it fits their cause.
-
-
sjoko
Oct. 26, 2006, 3:23 a.m.I was tought that torture does not work. Period. There are different psychological techniques one can use, with a success rate proven to be multiple times more effective. That is a real-world fact.
Second, if the United States, the country that should set the global example, now "allows torture" even under specific circumstances, it will be seen as a blanket "the US tortures" around the globe. Do we still have the right to be outraged when bodies of Americans are put on display - tortured? No. We have lost that moral right.
The way many people talk about this issue (as in lovelytxwoman above) is as some form of punishment to people whom threaten the US. Please note - this is not the way to look at this issue. This kind of treatment is, supposedly, tolerated only to force hostile individuals to provide information.
Once again, as with so many issues this government has delt with, an issue has been "resolved" without introspection
-
mumma-b
Oct. 26, 2006, 4:35 a.m.Excellent facts.
as the 'Violent Femme's" put it "America is the home of the hypocrite" and that was in the 80's.
-
alxnsc
Oct. 26, 2006, 6:27 a.m.Oh, again! Is anyone above suspicion? No? Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country! Just do it!
Do you like this game?
-
Star_Poet
Oct. 26, 2006, 6:43 a.m.Don't "Twist" and "Shout."
Read your headline again, then see your error.
-
alxnsc
Oct. 26, 2006, 7:21 a.m.Being slow in mind and having "more ear wax than brains", I have just so further figured this out. If not captured by the enemy military are to be allowed to torture anyone considered enemy and, they are not to be allowed to do it when they are not captured by the enemy or when they do not consider him enemy. Just the opposite, military considered "Enemy" are to be allowed to subject to any torture any military of their own, never mind captured or not, and not to be given permission to torture anyone they consider "an enemy", regardless of any obstacles.
These thoughts of mine are to be added to the future humanitarian annex to the Geneva conventions.
-
Watchemoket
Oct. 26, 2006, 3:11 p.m.where did you learn to write? I couldn't follow what you are trying to say in this post. Perhaps you could try again and make it a little clearer this time. Who is allowed to torture whom, and under what circumstances?
-
-
Bkumm
Oct. 26, 2006, 8:14 a.m.I think that we should treat the terrorists just as we would treat an American citizen who is allegedly guilty of a crime. Open trials, adherence to the Bill of Rights, follow the law. I don't understand why we need new laws and new guidelines when we already have them.
Isn't it interesting that 'Conservatives' want all of these new laws and it is the political left that wants the government to obey the laws that are currently in place?
Torture puts our government on the same level as terrorists and it generally doesn't work.
-
sjoko
Oct. 26, 2006, 1:27 p.m.Absolutely right. That is why there is a legal system developped over centuries.
-
-
workingal
Oct. 26, 2006, 8:23 a.m.yes...........they should be able to use torture.........
they cut our heads off.....and dont call that torture....
-
Bopi365
Oct. 26, 2006, 1:22 p.m.Cutting off heads was actually for shock value and propoganda purposes not for intelligence gathering or are you thinking "an eye for an eye"
-
sjoko
Oct. 26, 2006, 1:31 p.m.Once again - This issue is regarding torture to gather information. Not for revenge.
We need information on the acitivities and plans of hostiles, to safeguard our people. In the "good old" days we used to get this information mainly through the use of spies in enimy territory. Another good way of doing "things", proven over centuries, which has seen a huge decline under this and previous governments.
-
-
FrankieT
Oct. 26, 2006, 9:47 a.m.THEN WHAT THE H*LL ARE WE TO DO WITH ALL THOSE DAMN HEADS????
(Sorry for caps again. Maybe I just have this inate desire to yell.)
The main reason we should stick to conventional methods is they have been proven to work and torture has not. Moreso, we have certain pricipals we try to uphold that represent America. Do we want to lose all our credibilty when addressing human rights?
-
populist
Oct. 26, 2006, 8:02 p.m."And if we did play by the rules, would they respect us, love us? Remember, if we don't convert, they won't torture us... we will be put on our knees and our heads will roll."
wow, you're a frightened little sheep. who's coming to get you? name them. Who's coming to get me? Who's going to convert me?
no one.
-
bill-smith
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:48 p.m.It doesn't work. Just because there are sadists out there who enjoy hurting others doesn't prove that torture works.
Yes, by being in the right and having nothing to hide, by not stooping to the terroists' level, and maintaining our dignity we are "playing into their hands".
You really are terrified aren't you?
-
-
Meatmallet
Oct. 26, 2006, 9:48 a.m.HOW TO STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISTS...... it worked once in our History...
-
Meatmallet
Oct. 26, 2006, 9:49 a.m.Once in U.S. history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.
-
Meatmallet
Oct. 26, 2006, 9:50 a.m.Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.
All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.
Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won't make them flinch.
They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won't get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil.
-
axman
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:20 a.m.I had heard of this, I think that at least all "remains" of suicide bombers should be buried this way
-
koranagirl
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:25 a.m.where did all this "virgin" stuff come from? must be on www.urbanlegends.com. in the hereafter good muslims "will be wedded to demure spouses that only look upon them". there is a dispute whether the "spouse" will be one's former spouse that is transformed (ie, made young again), or whether it will be a new creation, but the Koran doesn't say new souls are created all the time. It kind of takes the "from the beginning approach". In any case, if one dies and becomes young again, you would think that all spirits over there are technically "virgins" anyway.
-
Watchemoket
Oct. 26, 2006, 3:19 p.m.OK, Meat, please check this link:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm
THIS INCIDENT DID NOT HAPPEN!! It is another one of those right-wing-nut legends made up of a mish-mash of wishful thinking, partial truths and whole cloth lies. In the end, doing what this story claims was done would not deter militant terrorists, because they have demonstrated that they believe in blood and terror more than the true faith of Islam (or Christaianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.). Such a tactic would just create more terrorists from the outrage it would create in the Islamic world.
-
-
-
-
populist
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:59 a.m.right. we're fat and lazy. we rarely even cook our own food. we go to a shop to change the oil in our cars. we babysit our children by turning the tv on. we don't protect ourselves. and we're afraid of some crazy people in a cave a few thousand miles away. soft is right. what a shame we have become...
-
-
-
torrent29
Oct. 26, 2006, 9:53 a.m.There are plenty of ways to get information out of people, more reliable information that is, then the use of torture.
Once we start going down that path, its only a slippery slope from us to them.
It was a pretty smart democrat who once said - "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The same holds true today. Despite what republicans may tell you its important to not lose sight of what it is that has made America a country to be respected around the world. The ideals and virtues we hold dear are for all people, if we want to promote our style of democracy in the world, then its important that we hold those virtues.
Anything less is to let the terrorists win. They wish to strike fear into our hearts and allowing torture is a sure sign that they have succeeded.
-
sjoko
Oct. 26, 2006, 1:42 p.m."The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
How appropriate at this time, as it summarizes the entire republican campaign strategy, which is based on creating fear amongst the population.
-
-
Sandmn
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:09 a.m.For the time being, this point and discussion are pretty moot. As this corrupt inefficient congress has permitted the passing of his latest fascist military commission gives him and the military full reign to torture who they please, without recourse. It has also made anyone guilty of these crimes immune to prosecution back to 911. This topic should be brought back up and struck down once the congress changes hands, as well as talks of impeachment and charges of wartime profiteering. But the first order of business should be verifying an honest vote on nov 7th.
Take your video recorder with you and record your vote. Use paper ballots when possible. Record everything you see out of place or irregular and get the word out quickly. Voter fraud is the only way they can hope to keep the house, so be ready and awake. Demand paper trails for voting and do away with tamperable voter machines. It's time to root out "all" the crooked politicians and string them up.
-
axman
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:24 a.m.JFK's election found several ballot boxes in the chicago river, I dont think they were on the computer then
-
bill-smith
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:57 p.m.No, what Congress has done is define anyone who we (the U.S.) deem to be a threat an enemy combatant that can be held indefinitly with no charges or trial. This in no way "reinforces" the Geneva Convention.
-
-
Wizardcotx
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:22 a.m.Torture, for the pure meaness of it is wrong.
However having said that.. Interrorigation of Terrorists should be seen as whatever it takes to secure the information necessary to stop terrorism against american troops and american civilians.
Aside from witch.. the Bill of rights is for AMERICAN Citizens, not a bunch of middle east thugs and criminals who glory in rape, robbery, and death in the name of their Demon prince ALLAH.
Terrorists and their supporters are NOT protected by American law for American Citizens.. they are like rabid dogs and should be killed.
-
PapaWolf
Oct. 26, 2006, 12:53 p.m."Aside from witch.. the Bill of rights is for AMERICAN Citizens, not a bunch of middle east thugs and criminals who glory in rape, robbery, and death in the name of their Demon prince ALLAH."
First, "Allah" is Arabic for "God." Those "Thugs" pray to the same God us Christians pray to. They just have a different interpretation, kind of like Jews/Christians, or Baptist/Me... Extremists in any of these religious beliefs are capable of attrocities. Look at W & Rummy w/the torture issue.
As to being for American citizens only, if we're going to torturing us "Middle East thugs" (I'm of Lebanese descent) to protect our fellow American citizens, shouldn't we be able to torture the Timothy McVeighs, or the Columbine boys, or any gang member because we can save US lives?
If torture is wrong for us, it's wrong for everyone.
-
sjoko
Oct. 26, 2006, 1:46 p.m.The Bill of Rights also governs the way America is viewed / regarded abroad, and forms (formed) the bases for the way America used to be seen, a successful example.
It was based on centuries of developments in Europe, fine tuned by free thinking Americans. All for good reason.
-
-
-
Hamilton1787
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:24 a.m.In reality, these people can be shot on the battlefield because they are more like spies than soldiers. They are not entitled at all to Geneva rights--for which Geneva signatory country do they fight? None at all. They don't dress in recognizable military uniforms (also covered by the Geneva convention), therefore they are spies, therefore they can be shot without trial.
For those against torture, define torture! Cutting off limbs? Yes we can agree to that. Booming Madonna music into the cell 24 hours a day? You would say yes, I would say no. So what is torture? Please define it and then we can have a discussion as to what is really is.
-
koranagirl
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:40 a.m.if laws mean nothing, can I steal your cash? your car? your house? you might be a terrorist you know and i get to do what i want now according to you and the politicians in washington. see my comment below.
-
torrent29
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:45 a.m.Would you consider the idea of rendition torture? Where we send prisoners to other countries so that they can be tortured there.
What exactly do you define torture as? Standing for hours on end? Sensory deprivation? Waterboarding? Where exactly do you draw the line.
Well, we can break your fingers but not your arms.
What would you make of this fellow?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
Canadian national transferred to Syria where he claims he was tortured. Is that allowable in your definition? The US wasnt doing
-
Bkumm
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:53 a.m.I would define torture as any form of interrogation which violates a person or persons right to not be harmed in detention. To further clarify, sleep depravation would be a form of torture. Loud music, as defined in excess of 100 db would be torture. Anything which can cause physical or psychological harm.
That does not mean, however, that they can not be asked a list of questions over and over again. Food can not be with held, but it sure could be bread and water. Privledges can be given and taken away, however not the right to pray in your own manner.
That defines terror for you. There is another path, but I don't think you'll like it. The other path is to be so brutal that no one anywhere would even consider attacking an American. Like destroying whole neighborhoods if a terrorist is from there. Impaling terrorists on the road to Baghdad. Cutting off the heads from our enemies with no trials. Things like that. But, if you think we are hated now...
-
bill-smith
Oct. 26, 2006, 11:07 p.m.Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Goo enough?
-
-
koranagirl
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:39 a.m.Yes, isn't it amazing, the Geneva convention has been around for how long? SINCE 1864! How many countries adhere to it? Almost 200 countries! (Note that Palestine has tried to agree to it, but there is a dispute over that becaue they aren't technicaly a country by some standards). But now some vigilantes in Washington don't like this treaty. They want to "reinterpret" it or change it or whatever. It takes 2/3 vote of the Senate to do this however. If we are not going to adhere to this international law, then why adhere to any laws at all. Just go out today and run people over with your car, blow stop signs, push and shove people around in your way, steal their cash, etc. and tell people that you're following the examples set down by the politicians in Washington, that laws really mean nothing, or they can be reinterpreted to mean nothing. Have a good day all!
-
bill-smith
Oct. 26, 2006, 11:11 p.m.The 1864 Geneva Convention laid the foundations for the contemporary humanitarian law.
http://www.redcross.lv/en/conventions.htm
You should look past the first response on the Google searches.
-
-
Leroy
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:44 a.m.If you can drop a bomb on innocent people, torture for a criminal should not even be discussed.
-
koranagirl
Oct. 26, 2006, 10:45 a.m.hey leroy, see my comment above, if laws mean nothing to you, can i come steal your car, your cash, oh and also don't complain, because you might be a terrorist
-
populist
Oct. 26, 2006, 12:50 p.m.well, leroy, there are many who believe that dropping a bomb on innocent people is murder. some day, such murderers will be held accountable.
-
AmpLee
Oct. 26, 2006, 4:07 p.m.If you can drop a bomb on innocent people, torture for a criminal should not even be discussed.)))
I actually thought that Leroy was talking about the US.
In the eyes of some, we have become what we have opposed.
Can one successfully use evil to eradicate evil from the world?
I really did think he meant the US, being unfamiliar with Leroy's views and making no assumption on his words based on previous posts.
If his statement can apply to both sides, what have we gained?
-
-
The first 101 comments are shown. Show all 472 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
