GITMO Hearing For USS Cole Suspect (Was Water-boarded and had an Electric Drill Held to his Head)

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


I appreciate the sentiment. I really do however.

The guy is SCUM



I'm off to the Gym.

PEACE

reply to post by neo96


Why is this case being tried at GITMO instead of being tried in Yemen for which the crime occurred? That's right, because Yemeni law would apply and it bans torture as well!

Yemen is a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention approved in 1949.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by SLAYER69


The perp may be scum but he is a human and odds are got suckered into doing what he did. A poor and uneducated and misdirected soul who was unfortunately scammed by bad people to commit an atrocious act!

Enjoy and have fun with your workout and good luck to reaching your target weight or stature!

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Really, and what do you propose be done to people that are wrong? Do they get to be tortured by their victim? I still can't believe anyone would think that it's ok to torture people.... It's totally insane way of thinking... Would you also not object to a cop that thinks he has the right guy going a round or two with torture?

My view is one of acceptable "battlefield torture" although it would apply to law enforcement as well.

If there is a real-time, immediate need situation, and the subject has information that could save lives, we should extract that information at all costs. I don't care if we go medieval on him. We should do whatever it takes to rescue the child or thwart the attack, or disarm the bomb, or whatever.

Now, I would never condone torture for stale intel days later back at the prison. That is useless anyway.

If we allowed cops or soldiers the ability to do this, but with the caveat that if the subject was later exonerated, then they would face criminal charges for anything they did. Assault, torture, murder, whatever fits, then it should be enough to make sure folks aren't just abusing their power. The criminal charges should go right up the chain to anybody that ordered it as well. As an example, I think everyone from Cheney and Rumsfield on down should be held accountable for Abu Ghraib. That was deplorable, and it didn't turn up any decent intel anyway.

So, immediate threat, battlefield situation, ends justify the means. All other occurrences are useless and should be outlawed. And, they better not guess at it, because if they guess wrong, they are going to pay the piper. Before they torture anybody, they better be dam sure it is the correct person, and they really have useful information.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Who gets to make the decision? Who gets to decide when or not someone is "guilty enough" or "might know enough"? There were many people foaming at the mouth about the Casey Anthony case, they would have loved to see the whole family tortured. Yet, a jury of peers heard the evidence and could not convict. Who gets to decide who is guilty enough to be tortured? Maybe you don't really understand what torture is, that is about the only excuse I can come up with. Well I have been tortured, burned, cut, whipped. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, including the people that did it to me. Yeah, they though that they knew I was guilty too. I was not, and you don't know what it is like until it has happened to you. I get to look in the mirror every day, and see all the scars, and be reminded of it. Ask vets from vietnam that went through it if they think we should torture.....

reply to post by getreadyalready


Dozens of treaties and laws ban it nationally and internationally but for some mysterious reason it's justified only on Arabs?

The decentralization architectural infrastructure of these terror groups means they are not cohesive in their operation as the left hand rarely ever knows what the right one is doing as they suffer from alot of mismanagement hence why it takes forever to formulate attacks.

As to the legitimacy of a military tribunal for trying terror suspects that means based upon that action that Martial Law is active stateside as then and only then outside of combat would a soldier be allowed to interrogate and prosecute. International laws and war crimes legislation exist to dictate the conduct of war as someone's gotta be monitoring a situation in order to have enough say and clout to restrict or ban use of certain munitions.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


reply to post by TKDRL


The person taking the risk gets to decide. If they choose to use it, they better be 100% right about it, and it better be for a real-time, time-sensitive, life-saving incident. If they guess wrong, then they are the ones going to jail.

And, I think it should be outlawed against in all other instances. There is no cause for torture in a prison or prison cell setting. The intel is stale, the subject will likely lie or make things up to satisfy the inquisitors. It should never be used.

I'll even go farther. I don't think our Constitution only provides rights to our citizens. In our Declaration we say these are "inalienable" rights. They should apply to everyone. If we are going into places like Iraq and Afghan on moral grounds, and we are "liberating" folks, then we should be extending all of our beliefs and morals to the enemy soldiers and taking the high ground at every opportunity. Either they are criminals, or the are POW's, and either way they have clearly defined rights.

So, torture is an acceptable means to a few specific ends, but once that immediate need is satisfied, the Constitution should apply.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Torture is wrong any way you slice the cake, combat or no combat and to attempt to legitimatize it is also dead wrong. Torture never works!

Torture is illegal under the Constitution, see the 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and interrogation tactics. Our Constitution does apply to people in our custody and that is that hence why when an illegal is caught they are afforded all the protections it contains therein. Same ruling applies for enemy combatants!

This was the excuse 43, Cheney, Rumsfield tried issuing and were flat out and dead wrong then and is still wrong now. Nothing will change this.

2 classic cases from the 1990's where torture was not used yet we got solid convictions and that is the cases of Ramzi Yousef and Omar Abdel-Rahman both when detained were treated fairly, humanely and got both in jail for life.

Since when is it policy to only torture Arabs?[

Geneva 1949 bans torture everywhere!

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

Torture never works!

So, hypothetically, my child has been kidnapped, they have a picture of the suspect, and his car, and we find the guy, but my child isn't with him. We know with 100% certainty he is the right guy. Perhaps the child is buried with limited air supply, or perhaps caged in a remote location where he will starve or dehydrate.

Do you not think it is appropriate to extract that information, at all costs, as quickly as possible? And, do you not think there is some level of pain and torment that will get the information out of him?

I'll tell you what, there is nothing I wouldn't do to save the child, and imagine if we don't torture. Imagine if the guy waits 6 weeks, strikes a plea deal with th prosecutors, gives up the location, and we find a dead, emaciated child in a cage, claw marks on the floor, and evidence that he survived the majority of that 6 weeks hoping Daddy would save him. Is that not torture?

Sorry, but some lives are more valuable than others, that is just the way it is. My child is more valuable than a criminals 100% of the time, and I can live with whatever repercussions God has in store for me.

reply to post by getreadyalready


What you do is to pin a tail on the kidnapper and not engage until you see bags of food being brought via his car to an abandoned building. If they are trying to extort money out of you or to exact a type of leverage out of you they will keep the kid alive. This prevents the target from becoming aware to your presence. You move too fast or a phone call or package is running late they'll kill the kid, the target is to keep them in the dark while locating the kid. If a satellite or cell phone is being employed, you employ something called a mobile phone locator whereas you activate a certain device, it'll read all cell phones in the area and using that you could further triangulate the phone that the courier is using, use that info gathered to monitor and track the phones use at a distance. See where they go most frequently and when the cell phone of the kidnapper calls it you've got their number and using satellite relay points you can then narrow down the location of the phone the kidnapper is using to a particular residence. Microwave tech via the CIA at a distance can then be used to get a picture of who is inside and the internal layout of the facility. You then construct a identical building and train there for a week or two so they master the layout and when all that is done they get into a helicopter or two and during the overnight and by daybreak they've got your kid safe and all are dead.

Take the bin-Ladin hit for example, we pinned a tail on a courier and followed him around for a minute and that led us to the target severely restricting and limiting civilian casualties to only the target.

Make a courier disappear or be late for a meeting and they'll kill the kid prematurely. This is why you don't torture. Of course any kid's life is worth millions of times over that of a scum.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


That's a good solution if possible. But, suppose the guy's already been stopped by local police, he's now panicked, and there's no way he's going back to that location. Do you torture?

I'm sure you can find a lot of alternatives, but what about the hypothetical, limited time, your loved one's life on the line, all the alternatives exhausted, down to one choice, do you torture the criminal to save your loved one?

reply to post by getreadyalready


You do not allow or inform local pd of your intent so that they can't run interferrence! Reread my edit for updates!

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1




I agree completely, but that doesn't solve our issue with the topic.

Hypothetically, if all other options were exhausted, just you and him, minutes of your child's life ticking by, do you torture?

To dramatize it movie style. The child is strapped to a bomb, 5 minutes counting down, you've tailed him to a remote location far from any help, there is a key that will disarm the bomb, but he won't give up the info on the key........ tick tock...... how do you get the info?

reply to post by getreadyalready


A downside unfortunately is that he may not know anything beyond what he is told and if he's not told of the locale of the key or the disarming code for the device there'd be nothing you can do. Odds are he's a foot soldier who isn't informed of anything!

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

A downside unfortunately is that he may not know anything beyond what he is told and if he's not told of the locale of the key or the disarming code for the device there'd be nothing you can do. Odds are he's a foot soldier who isn't informed of anything!

If that's true, then the 3 of us go out together, but his is going to be the most unpleasant demise!