Envision, Create, Share

Welcome to HBGames, a leading amateur game development forum and Discord server. All are welcome, and amongst our ranks you will find experts in their field from all aspects of video game design and development.

Does Terrorism Constitute Torture?

Recently it was released that the U.S. government used torture to obtain information from "terrorists". Torture was approved by President Bush while he was in office, and yet on many occasions he lied and said that we do not torture.

Techniques such as water boarding, sleep deprivation, and long time standing were used to attain information about Al Qaeda's plans or whereabouts. Most of the people that were tortured knew little to no information.

Do you think the government has the power to do this? And even if they do, Is it right?
 
Of course they don't. Clear breech of the Geneva convention.

3rd world countries simply disobey it.
1st word countries simply cover it up.
 
Your title is wrong. It should be something like "Does terrorism justify torture?"

No.

It's not terrorism that the U.S. Government is talking about anyway: it's the *threat* of terrorism - that's something entirely different, and an all pervasive bogeyman that is being used to justify far too much.

Life does not work like "24" (we get to go to the bathroom): Torture produces information that is unreliable, and most of the mooks who are being tortured won't be told anything of consequence anyway, and unreliable information can be more damaging than false information.

How many posts will we have to wait until someone produces the ticking bomb scenario? ;P

Of course they don't. Clear breech of the Geneva convention.

3rd world countries simply disobey it.
1st word countries simply cover it up.

Well put.

Amnesty International and those other "bleeding heart liberals" have repeatedly said it's very hard, and becoming harder to get justice in places that torture when the US has been extraditing people there for information.
 

Rin

Member

Torture is a form of terrorism. The only reason I can see for torture is to have it lurking over people as some sort of dark specter. Or just for sadists to get their rocks off. Or, as we are finding out, to create the intelligence you want.

And Dick Cheney and company want to change the script to "Is TortureEnhanced Interrogation Techniques effective?" Excuse me, torture is illegal so the answer to the first question shouldn't matter.
 
Yeah. It's not moral to torture, to imprison criminals in jails, to have an army of soldiers killing people from another nation.. and some say, even to eat cows. But we do it anyway. If they weren't terrorists willing to slit your throats just for the heck of it, they wouldn't be tortured, would they? Sorry, there's no empathy in me for these people.
 
Especially when they're the wrong people, right? Especially when, the right to a speedy trial, the 5th amendment, international laws for the basic rights of human, no cruel or unusual punishment, Habeas corpus, etc., seem to diminish in the hands of racist conservatives, who have no concrete evidence to confirm the accusations placed upon you other than your ethnicity, and country of origin. Furthermore, they question you in a language you barely understand and every answer of confusion you speak in your native tongue results in a punch to the face or 50 seconds on the waterboard, over and over and over until the you're on the brink of insanity. And on this brink of insanity they present you to the court, and in this state you appear to be a monster, a monster they created with their unjust methods of interrogation. Meanwhile, a suburban dweller calls your race "terrorist" because a small faction of your people despise America.
 

mawk

Sponsor

torture is against pretty much everything the civilized world says it's all about, and by ignoring this, you're basically letting whoever *they* are at the moment win. that's the entire "terror" portion of terrorism -- to scare the executive decision-makers so that they overreact and start forgetting hardcore moral values. I don't think that was ever really in the plan for any of these people, but it's being accomplished one way or another -- right now, America as a nation is basically pissing itself over ~*~possibilities~*~ and because of that, everyone on this continent people is gonna feel justified in whatever action is taken. the threat isn't anywhere as huge as the typical North American assumes

basically, no, never. practicing torture is immoral, yeah, but above all else, it has to be the most useless form of gathering information ever. to get out of a torture situation, a man will first and foremost say what he believes will get you to stop torturing him -- this could be the truth, or it could be complete bullshit. it's really just scattershot. the number of people you have to torture to verify the shaky bits of information you get from the process simply isn't worth it, in my opinion.

If they weren't terrorists willing to slit your throats just for the heck of it, they wouldn't be tortured, would they? Sorry, there's no empathy in me for these people.
god bless america
god bless america
god bless america
god bless america
god bless america
 
silver wind":2r06azoq said:
Yeah. It's not moral to torture, to imprison criminals in jails, to have an army of soldiers killing people from another nation.. and some say, even to eat cows. But we do it anyway. If they weren't terrorists willing to slit your throats just for the heck of it, they wouldn't be tortured, would they? Sorry, there's no empathy in me for these people.

Nobody expects you to have empathy for someone who would 'slit your throats just for the heck of it.' The problem is that these people probably wouldn't. The entire purpose of the American legal system is to prove that the alleged criminal acted in a way we don't like. This is so that if somebody wrongly accuses you, by mistake or by malintent, you don't need to be treated like a criminal, but if you are rightly accused, you are punished severely. That is the essence of 'innocent until proven guilty.'

These 'terrorists' that we are torturing for information? They were never subjected to this legal system. They were caught off the street of their native country, or often in an incriminating location, and brought immediately to interrogation. They were never proven to be involved in anything. Let me propose to you this situation:

You are walking down the street in Israel. All of a sudden, a building near you explodes as a bomb goes off. You hide in the nearest undamaged building, trying to stay out of whatever's going on, or maybe you run away from the scene, hoping not to be killed by the debris or by the partisans who have come out to battle. Then, you are found by some foreign soldiers that don't speak your language, who proceed to detain you. You don't know why the building exploded, but you were trying to get away from it so they assume you did it. You can't tell them otherwise, and if you could, they wouldn't believe it, because you just look like a terrorist.

When someone talks about torture, don't imagine the people who blew up the WTC (they're dead anyway, and are probably enjoying Satan mauling them with a facsimile of their virgins, and whatever other kind of torture they weren't expecting in the afterlife). Imagine this poor Israeli civilian that has nothing to do with it, that can't tell anybody otherwise because our military fired a large number of its Arabian translators in 2001 due to their possible Islamic connections.
 
I say yay to torture. The U.S.A has become a big weenie in the past years and almost everything has to be politically correct nowadays. If you want something outta someone, interrogate them. If they know nothing, oh well, you tried. Show that America is afraid of no one...

What every happened to Roosevelt’s motto? "Walk softly and carry a big stick."
 

mawk

Sponsor

If you want something outta someone, interrogate them. If they know nothing, oh well, you tried. Show that America is afraid of no one...
god bless america
god bless america
god bless america
god bless america
god bless america
 
kheaven":zomz3lqi said:
If you want something outta someone, interrogate them. If they know nothing, oh well, you tried. Show that America is afraid of no one...
god bless america
god bless america
god bless america
god bless america
god bless america

I don't think you're going to be able to make it any bigger Kheaven. :(


It raises an interesting point though, Sirius01. Should the cops be able to torture you in future?


WESTERLY, R.I. – A Rhode Island Democratic lawmaker says he'll donate $100 to charity for every second former President George W. Bush withstands waterboarding.

State Rep. Rod Driver sent letters making the offer to Bush as well as to former Vice President Dick Cheney and ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Bush's administration allowed the interrogation technique, which simulates drowning, to be used on terrorism suspects. Driver says if Bush is confident it isn't torture, he should try it himself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090521/ap_ ... or_charity

All in favour?


Chicago radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller decided he'd get himself waterboarded to prove the technique wasn't torture.

It didn't turn out that way. "Mancow," in fact, lasted just six or seven seconds before crying foul. Apparently, the experience went pretty badly -- "Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop," according to NBC Chicago.

"The average person can take this for 14 seconds," Marine Sergeant Clay South told his audience before he was waterboarded on air. "He's going to wiggle, he's going to scream, he's going to wish he never did this."

Mancow was set on a 7-foot long table with his legs elevated and his feet tied.

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' "

The upshot? "It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke," Mancow told listeners. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

"Absolutely. I mean that's drowning," he added later. "It is the feeling of drowning."

"If I knew it was gonna be this bad, I would not have done it," he said.

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/conser ... terboarded

Anyone else want to see 'Pills' take the challenge?
 

mawk

Sponsor

I don't think you're going to be able to make it any bigger Kheaven. :(
all in proportion to how much stupid shit is said. I really don't see the point of not shitting on this topic since now 14-year old jingoists have started to move in with the opinions their parents told them.

america is no different from any other country, and a policy of "an eye for an eye" is historically pretty much straight-up futile and stupid. when the japanese forces used these same methods on american troops during world war II, the americans put them to death, and then fucking dropped the bomb on their country.

I acc. have no idea why I'm arguing against you now since those aren't actually your opinions or the result of any real consideration.
 
A 14-year military interrogator has undercut one of the key arguments posited by Vice President Dick Cheney in favor of the Bush Administration’s torture techniques and alleged that the use of torture has cost “hundreds if not thousands” of American lives.

The interrogator, who uses the name “Matthew Alexander,” says he oversaw more than 1,000 interrogations, conducting more than 300 in Iraq personally. His statements are captured in a new video by Brave New Films (below).

“Torture does not save lives,” Alexander said in his interview. “And the reason why is that our enemies use it, number one, as a recruiting tool…These same foreign fighters who came to Iraq to fight because of torture and abuse….literally cost us hundreds if not thousands of American lives.”

Moreover, Alexander avers that many — as many as 90 percent — of those captured in Iraq said they joined the fight against the United States because of the torture conducted at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

“At the prison where I conducted interrogations,” Alexander said, “we heard day in and day out, foreign fighters who had been captured state that the number one reason that they had come to fight in Iraq was because of torture and abuse, what had happened at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.”

“Cheney,’ said Alexander, ‘fundamentally misunderstands the way America is viewed around the world,” a reporter who reviewed the video wrote Tuesday. “The American principles of freedom and democracy are cherished in the Muslim world and the idea, at least, of America is still a seductive one. But it is the behavior of the Bush administration at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and secret prisons around the globe that undercuts that image, allowing Al Qaeda to make the argument that America isn’t what it stands for.”

“One of Al Qaeda’s goals, it’s not just to attack the United States, it’s to prove that we’re hypocrites, that we don’t live up to American principles,” Alexander said. “So when we use torture and abuse, we’re playing directly into one of their stated goals.”

Vice President Cheney spoke out in defense of his administration’s so called “enhanced interrogation techniques” last week, including the waterboarding of key al Qaeda suspects.

“The point that is most absent is that our greatest success in this conflict was achieved without torture or abuse,” Alexander wrote in a blog post Sunday. “My interrogation team found Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq and murderer of tens of thousands. We did this using relationship-building approaches and non-coercive law enforcement techniques. These worked to great effect on the most hardened members of Al Qaida — spiritual leaders who had been behind the waves of suicide bombers and, hence, the sectarian violence that swept across Iraq. We convinced them to cooperate by applying our intellect. In essence, we worked smarter, not harsher.”

“The former vice president is confusing harshness with effectiveness,” he added. “An effective interrogation is one that yields useful, accurate intelligence, not one that is harsh. It speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of interrogations, the goal of which is not to coerce information from a prisoner, but to convince a prisoner to cooperate.”


http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/26/ ... can-lives/
 
:shock: all of you who think that torture was okay wouldn't think that way if it was you. It's all fine with you unless you're the one being tortured right? And to top that off, the person that made it all happen, Bush, got away with it! He deserves to be thrown in jail! Yet does anyone do anything about it? No.

god bless america
god bless america
god bless america
god bless america
god bless america
 

mawk

Sponsor

to be fair, bush really just strikes me as the figurehead in all this. he was surrounded from the start with incompetent informants and advisors pushing their own secret agendas. when you got people like rumsfeld starting out their writings to the president with bible verses in favour of war, you really can't blame the guy all the way.

I mean it's also the president's business not to be dumb and therefore putty in the hands of anyone with an agenda, but I definitely wouldn't call the poor guy evil.
 
If you know for a fact that something is going to go down that's going to kill like thousands and if you know for a FACT that this one guy knows how to stop it but he won't tell you... go ahead and do anything you need to get that information. However if you're wrong you're pretty much evil. Don't be wrong.

Even then it's still pretty evil to do. But will it be a necessary evil? And if you get it wrong and torture an innocent... that's one of the worst things you can do.


So in the end outlaw it but really, if someone knows the codes to stop a nuke and won't share don't let the law stop you.

It's another thing that has exceptions to the rule. Say no to torture but I won't say it'll NEVER be needed.

That said I don't think the US government needed to do those things... I don't think these were the exception to the rule.
 
The difficulty with torture is that it produces unreliable results. Imagine you've got the terrorist that set a bomb in NYC. Put yourself in his position, and imagine yourself getting tortured. Do you, A) Give real information to people who obviously have no respect for you or your cause, or B) Give them wrong information, knowing it won't make a difference as to whether they stop torturing you or not. Keep in mind that you're willing to die for your cause as it is. Does torturing ever produce reliable results? In the last eight years, for the three prisoners who were waterboarded, it never had. Our best results came from, and I do not lie, giving cookies to a diabetic terrorist, who then proceeded to provide information that led to the arrest of the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
 

Thank you for viewing

HBGames is a leading amateur video game development forum and Discord server open to all ability levels. Feel free to have a nosey around!

Discord

Join our growing and active Discord server to discuss all aspects of game making in a relaxed environment. Join Us

Content

  • Our Games
  • Games in Development
  • Emoji by Twemoji.
    Top