Viral Video Shot From Dorm Reminds me Why I am Totally AOK With Torturing Terrorists

[dblack]

We must never forget what these bastards did to our people.

NEVER.

What about torturing accused terrorists? Any of us can be accused of anything. Should we be subject to torture then?

 

[JimBowie1958]

We must never forget what these bastards did to our people.

NEVER.

What about torturing accused terrorists? Any of us can be accused of anything. Should we be subject to torture then?

What actual terrorist in custody would not be an 'accused terrorist'?

I am guessing you mean 'innocent but accused terrorists' but those are largely mythical by the time US interrogators are dealing with them and the question of torturing them is relevant.

There are protocols that filter out the innocent prior to interrogation because the interrogators dont want to waste their time. Perhaps from time to time they may want to find a scapegoat, but that is very unusual. In todays environment we have plenty of terrorists and only a few people that are trained and able to interrogate them, so the problem isnt searching through a haystack of innocent people to get one legit terrorist, no, the problem is sorting through all the low yielding riff raff to get to the people with the real data on what is happening. They dont have a great need to question the 98% of terrorists who are merely support though they do anyway for confirmation purposes.

So we are not dealing with the proverbial needle in a haystack so much as we are in a 19th century meat processing plant and we want to separate the bad from the good, the quality beef from the sick, infected, contaminated and trimmings.

I.E. we dont need to worry about them being innocent by the time the interrogators get them that has already been taken into account.

 

[dblack]

We must never forget what these bastards did to our people.

NEVER.

What about torturing accused terrorists? Any of us can be accused of anything. Should we be subject to torture then?

What actual terrorist in custody would not be an 'accused terrorist'?

I am guessing you mean 'innocent but accused terrorists' but those are largely mythical by the time US interrogators are dealing with them and the question of torturing them is relevant.

There are protocols that filter out the innocent prior to interrogation because the interrogators dont want to waste their time. Perhaps from time to time they may want to find a scapegoat, but that is very unusual. In todays environment we have plenty of terrorists and only a few people that are trained and able to interrogate them, so the problem isnt searching through a haystack of innocent people to get one legit terrorist, no, the problem is sorting through all the low yielding riff raff to get to the people with the real data on what is happening. They dont have a great need to question the 98% of terrorists who are merely support though they do anyway for confirmation purposes.

So we are not dealing with the proverbial needle in a haystack so much as we are in a 19th century meat processing plant and we want to separate the bad from the good, the quality beef from the sick, infected, contaminated and trimmings.

I.E. we dont need to worry about them being innocent by the time the interrogators get them that has already been taken into account.

When it comes to the deterioration of our rights in the face of authoritarian government, we always need to worry. What I'm worried about, in particular, is the common excuse used to short-circuit the 'protocols' and due process that protect us all from an over-zealous police state. "Terrorists don't deserve due process!" is the usual quip, and it deliberately ignores that fact that we don't know who the terrorists are.

In using this video to encourage our nation to adopt the practice of torture - to become the monsters we abhor - you are using terror to destroy our nation.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When it comes to the deterioration of our rights in the face of authoritarian government, we always need to worry. What I'm worried about, in particular, is the common excuse used to short-circuit the 'protocols' and due process that protect us all from an over-zealous police state. "Terrorists don't deserve due process!" is the usual quip, and it deliberately ignores that fact that we don't know who the terrorists are.

In using this video to encourage our nation to adopt the practice of torture - to become the monsters we abhor - you are using terror to destroy our nation.

Terrorists do not deserve due process as they are at war with the USA. In what war have we given due process rights to any combatants?

And there is nothing monstrous about torturing terrorists to protect the public from another 9-11 attack, dude.

While you talk this pie-in-the-sky idealism, lack of actionable data is putting the nation at risk.

 

[dblack]

When it comes to the deterioration of our rights in the face of authoritarian government, we always need to worry. What I'm worried about, in particular, is the common excuse used to short-circuit the 'protocols' and due process that protect us all from an over-zealous police state. "Terrorists don't deserve due process!" is the usual quip, and it deliberately ignores that fact that we don't know who the terrorists are.

In using this video to encourage our nation to adopt the practice of torture - to become the monsters we abhor - you are using terror to destroy our nation.

Terrorists do not deserve due process as they are at war with the USA.

"... deliberately ignores the fact that we don't know who the terrorists are."

Once we know who the terrorists are, do whatever you want with them, up to and including killing them outright. But you've apparently watched too many Dirty Harry movies. Due process isn't a lawyers' trick to let the guilty walk. It's how we determine who is guilty and who isn't. It's what protects us all from spurious accusations and an arbitrary police state. Ensuring due process to everyone, regardless of the accusation, is a fundamental requirement of just government.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Once we know who the terrorists are, do whatever you want with them, up to and including killing them outright. But you've apparently watched too many Dirty Harry movies. Due process isn't a lawyers' trick to let the guilty walk. It's how we determine who is guilty and who isn't. It's what protects us all from spurious accusations and an arbitrary police state. Ensuring due process to everyone, regardless of the accusation, is a fundamental requirement of just government.

When we capture Taliban or AQ or ISIS on the battlefield shooting at our soldiers, we dont need a civilian court to tell us that they are guilty or terrorists.

 

[dblack]

Once we know who the terrorists are, do whatever you want with them, up to and including killing them outright. But you've apparently watched too many Dirty Harry movies. Due process isn't a lawyers' trick to let the guilty walk. It's how we determine who is guilty and who isn't. It's what protects us all from spurious accusations and an arbitrary police state. Ensuring due process to everyone, regardless of the accusation, is a fundamental requirement of just government.

When we capture Taliban or AQ or ISIS on the battlefield shooting at our soldiers, we dont need a civilian court to tell us that they are guilty or terrorists.

And when you suspect someone not on the battlefield? What then?

 

[ClosedCaption]

RABBLE!

 

[WillMunny]

To be honest, I'd rather torture the Western liberal traitors who sold their nations' souls to Islam, because they should know better! At least muslims have been cousin-inbreeding for so many centuries I can dismiss muslims as mindless animals incapable of knowing any better - the same way a Jerry Springer guest doesn't know any better to fuck his sister because he's only getting his dad & grandpa's sloppy seconds. But these arrogant liberal traitors claim to be so "enlightened" I detest them ASTRONOMICALLY more than their inbred muslim pets.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And when you suspect someone not on the battlefield? What then?

That is 99.999% of the terrorists being interrogated. Otherwise we tend to just kill them.

We had the cleric and his son who were in Yemen doing propaganda for AQ, but the government simply killed him and his son. We just killed/assassinated a Taliban leader in Pakistan today. We did not try to interrogate him.

Interrogation is for real time processes like war fighting or pursuit of suspects in a terrorist act. None of those have any need of a civilian court.

 

[dblack]

And when you suspect someone not on the battlefield? What then?

That is 99.999% of the terrorists being interrogated. Otherwise we tend to just kill them.

This seems to contradict your earlier statement. Are we talking about combatants, captured on the battlefield? Or suspected terrorists apprehended in a non-combat situation?

 

[JimBowie1958]

And when you suspect someone not on the battlefield? What then?

That is 99.999% of the terrorists being interrogated. Otherwise we tend to just kill them.

This seems to contradict your earlier statement. Are we talking about combatants, captured on the battlefield? Or suspected terrorists apprehended in a non-combat situation?

OK, I will type slowly for you.

The people subject to interrogation are captured from the field of battle.

The rest are either civilians within the US whoa re tried as criminals, or they are overseas/outside the US and simply killed remotely. This includes US citizens.

I dont like the idea of killing US citizens outside the borders of the USA but that is what the Obama regime is doing if the citizens in questions are determined to be terrorists.

 

[charwin95]

Liberals look at the culture that carried out this attack.....and want to import A LOT MORE of it to America. And calls all who oppose it racist.

You are one fucked up piece of shit.

But when the mans right, he is right.

Where is his analysis lacking?

Bucs don't have the capacity to have any kind of analysis. He is fucked up.

 

[dblack]

And when you suspect someone not on the battlefield? What then?

That is 99.999% of the terrorists being interrogated. Otherwise we tend to just kill them.

This seems to contradict your earlier statement. Are we talking about combatants, captured on the battlefield? Or suspected terrorists apprehended in a non-combat situation?

OK, I will type slowly for you.

The people subject to interrogation are captured from the field of battle.

Really? That hardly seems clear. Most of what I've read indicates that most of the terror suspects in question were apprehended in non-combat situations. That's the problem with terrorism. Usually, there is no battlefield.

The rest are either civilians within the US whoa re tried as criminals, or they are overseas/outside the US and simply killed remotely. This includes US citizens.

I dont like the idea of killing US citizens outside the borders of the USA but that is what the Obama regime is doing if the citizens in questions are determined to be terrorists.

That last bit is the crucial question. That's what due process is all about.