Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

typoon · Dec 17, 2003, 09:18 AM

This has been a question going around.

What do you think should be done to extract intel and other info from Saddam?

Should he be allowed to be tourtured like he did his own people or should other methods be used?

I'm not for torturing him, just roughing him up a little to get intel. Unfortunately that'll never happen. I hear that the new "truth sirums" (SP) are pretty good at making people talk.

spacefreak · Dec 17, 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by typoon:
I'm not for torturing him, just roughing him up a little to get intel. Unfortunately that'll never happen. I hear that the new "truth sirums" (SP) are pretty good at making people talk.

I'm for truth serums, sleep deprication, and perhaps a little roughing up in order to get info from him.

I don't think fingers or other limbs need to be severed, nor do i feel that electrocutions or rapings of family members in front of him (tactics he and his cohorts are infamous for) are necessary.

Now, if Iraqis were to handle the interrogations, that would be a different story. I'd be able to step aside and let them do their thing. But since it's the CIA, i don't think there is a need for dismemberment, raping family members, etc....at least not yet.

Ayelbourne · Dec 17, 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by typoon:
This has been a question going around.

What do you think should be done to extract intel and other info from Saddam?

Should he be allowed to be tourtured like he did his own people or should other methods be used?

I'm not for torturing him, just roughing him up a little to get intel. Unfortunately that'll never happen. I hear that the new "truth sirums" (SP) are pretty good at making people talk.

If you torture him, how do you then differentiate yourself from him?

The Mick · Dec 17, 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
If you torture him, how do you then differentiate yourself from him?

Developer · Dec 17, 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
If you torture him, how do you then differentiate yourself from him?

USA = good ; Axis = evil

spacefreak · Dec 17, 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
If you torture him, how do you then differentiate yourself from him?

Our interrogation would be in the interest of preventing more attacks and saving lives. Many of Saddam's victims, on the other hand, were tortured and killed because they expressed themselves too freely for Saddam's comfort.

christ · Dec 17, 2003, 09:41 AM

No.

Under no circumstances.

No.

Ayelbourne · Dec 17, 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Our interrogation would be in the interest of preventing more attacks and saving lives. Many of Saddam's victims, on the other hand, were tortured and killed because they expressed themselves too freely for Saddam's comfort.

"You see, your honor? He had a Darned Good Reason." - Steve Martin, All Of Me

boots · Dec 17, 2003, 09:45 AM

No. As atrocious as his crimes are/were, he is still human. If we truly believe in the things that make us great, we can't dehumanize him. Torture dehumanizes us as much as it does the person tortured.

Even if it means we don't get some key info that will prevent future attacks.

xi_hyperon · Dec 17, 2003, 09:53 AM

There is NO justification for torture.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 17, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm for truth serums, sleep deprication,

Sleep depreciation. Is this an IRS thing?

theolein · Dec 17, 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sleep depreciation. Is this an IRS thing?

Actually, while I really oppose torturing Saddam for anything, I do support torture as a means of extracting good grammar from MacNN members

(For the humour impaired members of this forum from the North Atlantic and other fine places, that was a joke, even if a somewhat tasteless and silly one.)

Lerkfish · Dec 17, 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Our interrogation would be in the interest of preventing more attacks and saving lives. Many of Saddam's victims, on the other hand, were tortured and killed because they expressed themselves too freely for Saddam's comfort.

and you know this...because?

Wiskedjak · Dec 17, 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
If you torture him, how do you then differentiate yourself from him?

Lerkfish · Dec 17, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
If you torture him, how do you then differentiate yourself from him?

even though you make an excellent point, one must keep in mind that supporters for the Iraq war have demonstrated that they only need to be infinitesmally less bad than Saddam to be "good".

If you complain about surrounding villages in razorwire, or operation "iron fist" for example, then they say "But Saddam would have treated them worse" as if that was any justification for us treating Iraqis badly.

therefore, any amount of torture that we might employ cannot be considered "bad", because we're the good guys and we wear the white hats.

convenient morality is no morality.

Ayelbourne · Dec 17, 2003, 10:55 AM

I was in the video shop last night, and there was this mechanical Santa gyrating in the window, endlessly playing a scratchy 30 second loop of "Jingle Bell Rock". We could put that in his cell and...

No! No! What am I saying? That would be just inhuman...

Hell, I was ready to confess to having WMD after just ten minutes...

theolein · Dec 17, 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
even though you make an excellent point, one must keep in mind that supporters for the Iraq war have demonstrated that they only need to be infinitesmally less bad than Saddam to be "good".

If you complain about surrounding villages in razorwire, or operation "iron fist" for example, then they say "But Saddam would have treated them worse" as if that was any justification for us treating Iraqis badly.

therefore, any amount of torture that we might employ cannot be considered "bad", because we're the good guys and we wear the white hats.

convenient morality is no morality.

You might want to read my post in the Enola gay thread. I think that it's a case of the winner of a conflict writing the history and morlas of said conflict.

typoon · Dec 17, 2003, 10:59 AM

We could put him in a room and let him listen to Hillary's book over and over and over again. I know if I had to do that I'd make stuff up just to get them to stop.

spacefreak · Dec 17, 2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
and you know this...because?

Because I pay attention. This quote is from here, though there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other links documenting similar episodes.

Systematic torture of political prisoners in Iraq

On 2 July 1999 Al-Shaikh Yahya Muhsin Ja'far al-Zeini, a 29-year-old former theology student, was arrested in his parents' house in Saddam City, Baghdad. His father and two brothers had been detained as substitute prisoners until his arrest. Security men blindfolded him and took him to the Saddam Security Directorate in Baghdad.

During the five months that Al-Shaikh Yahya was held at the Directorate he was regularly subjected to electric shocks followed by beatings on the feet. For two months he had to sleep on the floor with his hands tied behind his back and his face on the floor. On one occasion he was suspended from a window for three days. After being transferred to the Security Directorate of al-Rassafa district, also in Baghdad, he remained held without charge or trial until 14 April 2000, when he was released.

Al-Shaikh Yahya's detention was part of a wave of arrests which followed widespread anti-government protests in southern Iraq and in Saddam city, the Shi'a dominated district of Baghdad. The protests were sparked by the killing of a well-known Shi'a Muslim cleric, Ayatollah Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, in February 1999 in the southern city of al-Najaf, and resulted in the killings of dozens of protesters by the security forces and the arrest of hundreds of people. Many, like Al-Shaikh Yahya, were the victims of torture. Methods of torture used included suspension followed by repeated beatings on various parts of the body, the use of electric shocks on the genitals as well as psychological torture such as torturing detainees in front of relatives or friends, and solitary confinement.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 17, 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
even though you make an excellent point, one must keep in mind that supporters for the Iraq war have demonstrated that they only need to be infinitesimally less bad than Saddam to be "good".

Yes, obviously we will only use 110v on his genitals. Saddam would have used 220.

Self-righteousness can be a little ugly, Lerk. Calling people who don't agree with you "infinitesmally (sic) less bad than Saddam" is both that, and way over the top.

spacefreak · Dec 17, 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by boots:
No. As atrocious as his crimes are/were, he is still human. If we truly believe in the things that make us great, we can't dehumanize him. Torture dehumanizes us as much as it does the person tortured.

Even if it means we don't get some key info that will prevent future attacks.

It's despicable that you would allow Saddam and his cohorts to kill more and more people to satisfy your own agenda.

boots · Dec 17, 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's despicable that you would allow Saddam and his cohorts to kill more and more people to satisfy your own agenda.

And it saddens me that people are willing to give up their humanity to satisfy their agenda.

I guess it's just a really sad and despicable world.

spacefreak · Dec 17, 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by xi_hyperon:
There is NO justification for torture.

Of a top enemy leader during war? Absolutely there's justification.

In this case, however, interrogating a medicated man isn't torture. Depriving someone of sleep isn't torture either. Otherwise, picking up a tipsy woman (or man) at a bar and "shacking up" with them would be a punishable felony.

lil'babykitten · Dec 17, 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by boots:
And it saddens me that people are willing to give up their humanity to satisfy their agenda.

I guess it's just a really sad and despicable world.

Indeed.

spacefreak · Dec 17, 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by boots:
And it saddens me that people are willing to give up their humanity to satisfy their agenda.

My agenda is preventing the lives of US troops, contractors, and Iraqi civilians who are being slaughtered daily. Your agenda is respecting and coddling Saddam Hussein in the name of humanity.

I'll take my agenda over yours each and every time.

Ayelbourne · Dec 17, 2003, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Absolutely there's justification (of torture).

Okay. Shall we ask Hussein what his justifications are?

Ayelbourne · Dec 17, 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Depriving someone of sleep isn't torture either.

That's news to me...

Lerkfish · Dec 17, 2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Because I pay attention. This quote is from here, though there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other links documenting similar episodes.

apparently I wasn't clear:
my question refers to your statements thusly:

Our interrogation would be in the interest of preventing more attacks and saving lives.

and you know that torturing him would prevent more attacks because....? You're assuming Saddam has knowledge of attacks, or the knowledge he was being tortured would diminish the resolve of the attackers... How do you know that?

boots · Dec 17, 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Otherwise, picking up a tipsy woman (or man) at a bar and "shacking up" with them would be a punishable felony.

It is illegal. Should the person not be happy with the arrangement when sober, the person can press rape charges and win. There are many precedents for that.

Lerkfish · Dec 17, 2003, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's despicable that you would allow Saddam and his cohorts to kill more and more people to satisfy your own agenda.

no, what's despicable is you would make this accusation to someone pointing out that torture is inhumane.

are you saying torture IS humane treatment?

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 17, 2003, 11:20 AM

OK, why is there this assumption that the US is going to use torture? This is pure speculation. The use of torture is a federal crime and contrary to military regulations. It is also completely unnecessary. It's well known that a person under torture does not give accurate information. Slow and patient questioning works much better.

The only possible exception to the prohibition on torture is the so-called ticking timebomb exception. That's when something truly dreadful will certainly happen unless you resort to torture to get the information to prevent it. That clearly doesn't apply here. We've got all the time in the world to talk to this guy.

Saddam will no doubt be subjected to psychological pressure. But there is no need to cross the line over to torture and no evidence that anyone would want to. This is pure fantasy.

Logic · Dec 17, 2003, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, why is there this assumption that the US is going to use torture? This is pure speculation. The use of torture is a federal crime and contrary to military regulations. It is also completely unnecessary. It's well known that a person under torture does not give accurate information. Slow and patient questioning works much better.

The only possible exception to the prohibition on torture is the so-called ticking timebomb exception. That's when something truly dreadful will certainly happen unless you resort to torture to get the information to prevent it. That clearly doesn't apply here. We've got all the time in the world to talk to this guy.

Saddam will no doubt be subjected to psychological pressure. But there is no need to cross the line over to torture and no evidence that anyone would want to. This is pure fantasy.

And once in a while we agree on something

petehammer · Dec 17, 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
My agenda is preventing the lives of US troops, contractors, and Iraqi civilians who are being slaughtered daily. Your agenda is respecting and coddling Saddam Hussein in the name of humanity.

I'll take my agenda over yours each and every time.

And here is exactly the problem. For years, people have made Hitler out to be an inhuman monster, due to all the atrocities committed. Unfortunately, once Hitler is no longer human, we don't worry about it happening again, because he's a monster. The fact that Hitler was human, like you and me, is why we should try to understand him to prevent future Hitlers.

Recognizing that Saddam is human is far more frightening to me than saying he is a monster who we should a) torture and b) execute (see Bush's comments). The fact that a person from the human race is capable of being a brutal dictator is what should be keeping us awake at night.

We're the U.S. Countries (used to) look up to us. We should take the high road. "Justifiable torture" is still torture of a human being.

typoon · Dec 17, 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, why is there this assumption that the US is going to use torture? This is pure speculation. The use of torture is a federal crime and contrary to military regulations. It is also completely unnecessary. It's well known that a person under torture does not give accurate information. Slow and patient questioning works much better.

The only possible exception to the prohibition on torture is the so-called ticking timebomb exception. That's when something truly dreadful will certainly happen unless you resort to torture to get the information to prevent it. That clearly doesn't apply here. We've got all the time in the world to talk to this guy.

Saddam will no doubt be subjected to psychological pressure. But there is no need to cross the line over to torture and no evidence that anyone would want to. This is pure fantasy.

I only brought this up because I heard a debate about this and was curious to see what the folks of the forum thought. We always have interesting discussions here and this just made for some good discussion.

I know that some people would want to see him tortured to get info from him.

Lerkfish · Dec 17, 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, obviously we will only use 110v on his genitals. Saddam would have used 220.

Self-righteousness can be a little ugly, Lerk. Calling people who don't agree with you "infinitesmally (sic) less bad than Saddam" is both that, and way over the top.

I'll have to take your word that self-righteousness can be ugly: you're the expert.

and again, to clarify:
I'm not calling people who "disagree with me" infinitesmally less bad than Saddam. I'm referring to previous threads where I questioned how badly US troops were treating Iraqi civilians and the justification was as long as it was not AS BAD as Saddam treated them, they were better off. At that time, I asked where they drew the line.
My reference is not to whether someone disagreed with me, but rather that someone justified bad treatment of civilians, just as long as it wasn't as bad as they were treated previously. It is to that attitude that I refer.

petehammer · Dec 17, 2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
My reference is not to whether someone disagreed with me, but rather that someone justified bad treatment of civilians, just as long as it wasn't as bad as they were treated previously. It is to that attitude that I refer.

Ah, but Lerk, using a strawman to destroy your credibility is far easier.

Lerkfish · Dec 17, 2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But there is no need to cross the line over to torture and no evidence that anyone would want to. This is pure fantasy.

apparently an erotic fantasy for several here, judging by the brutality of the suggestions and the lurid detail involved in fantasizing how he should be tortured.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 17, 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by typoon:
I only brought this up because I heard a debate about this and was curious to see what the folks of the forum thought. We always have interesting discussions here and this just made for some good discussion.

I know that some people would want to see him tortured to get info from him.

OK, let's just be clear here that we are talking hypotheticals here. There is no evidence that anyone is going to be tortured. In fact if the LTC West case is any guide, it ought to be clear that the US military is very concerned about anything that could be seen as crossing the line into torture.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 17, 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
apparently an erotic fantasy for several here, judging by the brutality of the suggestions and the lurid detail involved in fantasizing how he should be tortured.

But not by anyone connected to the military.

Your line above certainly read as saying that people who support the war would support anything that is only slightly less brutal than Saddam. That's obnoxious, Lerk. You don't corner the market on morality. Now, if you didn't mean that, that's fine. But that is how it came across.

Lerkfish · Dec 17, 2003, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by petehammer:
Ah, but Lerk, using a strawman to destroy your credibility is far easier.

that's a foregone conclusion. As far as the right wing posters on these boards, my credibility is moot. Anything I say is ridiculed as a conspiracy theory and I am called a nutcase at every opportunity (though usually when I'm making a salient point they have no defense for, oddly enough)

Even as things I've said get proven true over time, its still a conspiracy theory.

Referring to something as a theory, does not make it automatically wrong. Elsewise all those discussions we've had on board about evolution theory would be much different.

Lerkfish · Dec 17, 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But not by anyone connected to the military.

Your line above certainly read as saying that people who support the war would support anything that is only slightly less brutal than Saddam. That's obnoxious, Lerk. You don't corner the market on morality. Now, if you didn't mean that, that's fine. But that is how it came across.

I can't keep track of how what I say "comes across" to Simey, and waste posts ferreting out your misconceptions of what I said or meant. We wasted several pages in another thread doing that very thing.

Let's just accept as a given that you'll twist anything I say into its worst possible meaning and go from there. It doesn't fit your agenda to do elsewise.

SimeyTheLimey · 11:44 AM

Fine, Lerk. I'll just quote what you said again. Let your words about "supporters for (sic) the Iraq war" speak for itself.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
even though you make an excellent point, one must keep in mind that supporters for the Iraq war have demonstrated that they only need to be infinitesmally less bad than Saddam to be "good".

Of course, you could say sorry, and that you didn't mean to say what you said. Or you could blame the person who said "wait a minute, what did you just say about us?"

Anyway, I doubt we will get any kind of admission. Time to move on back to the fun topic of torture ::rubs hands, cackles evilly::

petehammer · Dec 17, 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Fine, Lerk. I'll just quote what you said again. Let your words about "supporters for (sic) the Iraq war" speak for itself.

Of course, you could say sorry, and that you didn't mean to say what you said. Or you could blame the person who said "wait a minute, what did you just say about us?"

I read this meaning that "as long as you're not Saddam, you're good." Which, after reading some posts about torture, seems fairly accurate. "Hey, we don't have rape rooms, therefore... we're good."

"Hey, we can have justified torture, because we're not Saddam."

Lerk makes a good point: just because the emeny does certain things doesn't mean when we do them back we're good.

When we kill Iraqi civilians, you can call it "collatoral damage" or whatever you want, it still is a "bad" thing. Ends do not justify the means.

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 17, 2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by petehammer:
I read this meaning that "as long as you're not Saddam, you're good." Which, after reading some posts about torture, seems fairly accurate. "Hey, we don't have rape rooms, therefore... we're good."

And the evidence that anyone is going to torture Saddam is . . .

. . . imaginary.

petehammer · Dec 17, 2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And the evidence that anyone is going to torture Saddam is . . .

. . . imaginary.

Sigh. Yes, we know that. It's a hypothetical.

The fact that some people believe that some torture is justified, in my mind, is no better than the torture that Saddam did. I'm sure he felt it was justified as well.

I realize that U.S. troops are not going to torture him, the fallout would be massive. However, I'm sure Bush will execute him (as evidenced by comments earlier).

Lerkfish · Dec 17, 2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Fine, Lerk. I'll just quote what you said again. Let your words about "supporters for (sic) the Iraq war" speak for itself.

Of course, you could say sorry, and that you didn't mean to say what you said. Or you could blame the person who said "wait a minute, what did you just say about us?"

Anyway, I doubt we will get any kind of admission. Time to move on back to the fun topic of torture ::rubs hands, cackles evilly::

Ahhhh... I see the problem. let me correct my bad phrasing:

even though you make an excellent point, one must keep in mind that supporters for the Iraq war have demonstrated (here at macNN in previous threads) that they
(meaning US troops in the region) only need to be infinitesmally less bad (to ordinary Iraqi civilians) than Saddam (was to ordinary civilians) to be "good".

hopefully that clears things up, or do you want three more pages....?

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 17, 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Ahhhh... I see the problem. let me correct my bad phrasing:

hopefully that clears things up, or do you want three more pages....?

That's fine. You seem to be confirming my interpretation. But thank you for clearing it up.

Of course, aside from what you think of us, I'd dispute that US troops have ever been only infinitesimally less bad than Saddam was. I think that grossly understates Saddam's brutality, and grossly maligns US soldiers. But we don't need to discuss that for multiple pages.

Ayelbourne · Dec 17, 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And the evidence that anyone is going to torture Saddam is . . .

. . . imaginary.

C'mon, Simey. When I saw the topic title for this thread, I assumed it to be a discussion of poeple's opinions about the acceptability of using torture to gain information from Hussein or someone like him. I can't see that it could interpreted any other way, especially since Typoon made that point clear in his first post. No one in this thread seriously (so far) claims Hussein is going to be tortured.

You know perfectly well that you're much sharper than this.

Lerkfish · Dec 17, 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's fine. You seem to be confirming my interpretation. But thank you for clearing it up.

Of course, aside from what you think of us, I'd dispute that US troops have ever been only infinitesimally less bad than Saddam was. I think that grossly understates Saddam's brutality, and grossly maligns US soldiers. But we don't need to discuss that for multiple pages.

once again proving my point: you will characterize what I say in the worst possible interpretation so as to smear me at every opportunity. Even when I and others point out the correct interpretation, you persist in your incorrect one....You're very tedious about this whole personal vendetta thing.....Petehammer understood my point just fine. Why is it that you cannot?

Your problem is that You AGAIN have it wrong, and I'm only going to explain it one more time:

--I am NOT saying our troops are only slightly less bad than Saddam. That is NOT my assessment. I was commenting on how the assessment of some OTHER macNN posters demonstrate that, TO THEM, even if US treatment of civilians were only slightly worse than Saddam, THEY WOULD STILL CONSIDER the US to be the good guys, because we're us and he's him.

Its a point about moral relativity.

boots · Dec 17, 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's fine. You seem to be confirming my interpretation. But thank you for clearing it up.

Of course, aside from what you think of us, I'd dispute that US troops have ever been only infinitesimally less bad than Saddam was. I think that grossly understates Saddam's brutality, and grossly maligns US soldiers. But we don't need to discuss that for multiple pages.

Simey, you're off base. 1) the thread started with a hypothetical, so yes, it is imaginary by definition. 2) Lerk was making a point that some people here think we can do anything short of being Saddam and still claim the moral high ground.

Your are 1) missing the point of the thread by getting upset with the hypothetical and 2) missing Lerk's point by taking it too much upon yourself. You are certainly not the only one it *could* have been directed at, but you seem to take it as a personal affront. That's pretty vain. Suck it up and move on.