Re: Torture and the Innocent

It was these enhanced
interrogation techniques that allowed for bin Laden's capture and
death.
---
questionable
an Obama official told the Associated Press that the information KSM
gave up about the courier was not obtained during waterboarding but
under standard interrogation. The Times also reported that the first
time KSM was asked about the courier was months after he was
waterboarded.

On May 18, 9:47 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There were only three folks who were exposed to enhanced interrogation
> techniques by the United States: Abu Zubaydah, Kahlid Shaykh Muhammad, and
> Rahim al Nashiri.  Many Moonbats refer to "waterboarding"  as torture.  it
> wasn't.   These same Moonbats give credit to President Barak Hussein Obama
> for purportedly killing Osama bin Laden.  It was these enhanced
> interrogation techniques that allowed for bin Laden's capture and death.
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:19 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It seems that the pro-torture crowd never considers the discomforting
> > possibility that the person being torture is innocent and has no
> > relevant information to divulge at all?
> > --
> > that possibility should always be remembered
> > but when a suspect is deemed 'worthy' and torture can save lives by
> > finding co-conspirators then torture is justified, especially when
> > terrorism is involved
>
> > On May 17, 11:53 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > Thursday, May 17, 2012Torture and the Innocentby Jacob G. Hornberger
> > > One of the main arguments made by pro-torture Americans is that the
> > information acquired by torture can lead to important information that can
> > save the lives of innocent people. Their argument is a classic example of
> > the old maxim, "The end justifies the means."
> > > But even if we were to accept that utilitarian argument for torture,
> > doesn't it necessarily involve an important assumption? Doesn't it assume
> > that the person being tortured is guilty of the suspected offense or
> > possesses the important information that is sought from him?
> > > It seems that the pro-torture crowd never considers the discomforting
> > possibility that the person being torture is innocent and has no relevant
> > information to divulge at all?
> > > What happens if a suspect tells the torturer that he is innocent and
> > doesn't have the information the torturer is seeking?
> > > One possibility is that the torturer will say, "Well, I believe you. I'm
> > not going to torture you. I'm going to go ahead and release you."
> > > That outcome, however, is highly unlikely, especially since many people
> > who are guilty of the offense or who do possess the information that is
> > being sought, initially deny culpability.
> > > It's much more likely that the torturer is going to reject the suspect's
> > claim of innocence and begin torturing him. The torturer's mindset is that
> > the suspect wouldn't be there being tortured if he were truly innocent.
> > After all, the torturer feels, the military and the CIA would never bring
> > innocent people to be tortured.
> > > During the first few bouts of torture, the innocent person will continue
> > to claim he's innocent. But to the torturer, that will simply mean that the
> > torture hasn't been tough enough. He'll ramp up the torture to make the
> > person talk.
> > > So, how long does this go on? It could actually go on for a long time.
> > One inmate currently at Guantanamo was waterboarded 83 times. Was that
> > because the torturer felt that the victim wasn't forthcoming after 82
> > times? How many times would he waterboard a person who turned out to be
> > totally innocent 183 times? 283 times? When would he stop? Would he stop?
> > > Could the government, including the military and the CIA, make a mistake
> > by targeting an innocent person for torture? Of course. How often do we
> > hear about government officials executing people for crimes they didn't
> > commit?
> > > The solution to this problem is not to get better screeners before
> > torturing people or even to have a system of pre-torture judicial review,
> > where judges issue torture warrants based on probable cause, as some in the
> > pro-torture crowd advocate.
> > > The solution is to reject the "end justifies the means" mindset. Moral
> > principles are immutable. We need to prohibit torture under all
> > circumstances. Hopefully, even the pro-torture crowd would not countenance
> > things like rape or murder of a suspect's family members, even if those
> > means were successful in inducing people to confess or talk. It should be
> > no different with torture.http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-05-17.asp
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.