Torture...

Force it out of them?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 74.5%
  • No

    Votes: 14 25.5%

  • Total voters
    55
  • Poll closed .
R

RadioPatrol

Guest
JPC sr said:
:jameo: Click HERE for a more relevant link.

Plus I say the real question is if ye believe in torturing others then do ye also agree to the others torturing prisoners from our side?

That is what we get, we torture and now they have license to torture American soldiers and citizens.
:whistle:


Nick Berg, Danial Pearl - how many other westerner's murdered and tortured by insurgents, Islamofascists ??

Bury them all in Pig Carcases and broadcast it on Al Jezzera ........ let 'em know anyone fighting against the US and the Iraqi Gov gets the same .... I'd a disemboweled Al Zarquai on the spot and traded his guts for Pig guts, and dropped him in an unmarked grave in the desert somewhere ......... and posted the Video to youtube ............ :whistle:

Sidenote:
From the " This takes Balls Dept" :

Allawi Shot Prisoners in Cold Blood
 

Toxick

Splat
Larry Gude said:
...do think there are situations where US government sanction and performance of torture are appropriate?

Only when Jack Bauer does it.
And only when THERES NO OTHER WAY DAMMIT!
 
R

RadioPatrol

Guest
Larry Gude said:
...I see us as a civilized society fighting a society that is based on cruelty and injustice. If we're not violent towards violence we lose.

That I wish to see our enemies defeated makes me untrustworthy?


:yay: :yay:

akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight, how does one hold the moral ground, or is there a moral ground in this fight ?

or does it just denigrate to the lowest common denominator and one / one's country does what ever is needed to stop the fight ......

Review Dresden and Tokyo Fire bombings ......... WAR is ugly and fighting an Insurgency / Guerrilla WAR is the worst, cause the bastards hide among the civilians ......... on and BTW I do not believe Insurgents are covered by any Geneva Conventions ......... However Police are unequipped to handle this type of problem either ....... while it is more of a criminal issue, civilians killing each other ......... where does one draw the line between criminal and terrorist ......... i prefer the way the Israelis handle Hamas and Hezbolla - with Helicopter Gunships and Missiles or Mosad Assassins


Oh and I think we should kill them, keep killing them, untill none are left, or they get tired of dying ....... a tac nuke on Sader City would be extrem, but B52's and 500lb bombs would be ok ........ maybe cluster bombs and napalm as well .......... but I am just a sick evil bastard ........... :whistle:
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
tirdun said:
Except that torture rarely provides useful and timely information. A person under torture will say anything, true or false, to get you to stop. Even for a moment. In the cases of a zealot/terrorist, they may see the torture as a final step to reward and lie just to thwart you. But as torture is clearly already being used, show me where it has proven useful. What have we learned? What have we gained? Give us something to measure against what we've paid.

"But your child!" you've argued. Make any argument personal and charged enough and you'll get someone to agree to just about anything. Would you murder someone for a dollar? A million dollars? If you knew they would kill someone tomorrow? In ten minutes? Fifty people? If you knew they would kill your wife tomorrow? If they killed your wife yesterday? Would you kill ten people?

Change the crime to anything else, then keep upping the "IF" or adding clauses, dehumanize the victim, add degrees of separation, add levels of pressure until you reach the threshold in which that person will agree. Add timeframes. Add deathtolls. Add deep personal connections. What wouldn't you do, given a convoluted enough list of "if"s.

And finally, what's the point? To ultimately prove that under the right set of circumstances we would all be capable of doing something that we normally might consider terrible?

So we torture for the greater good. What else should we do? Is there anything that is forbidden if the "greater good" is eventually served? What level of payoff is that line drawn at? Who draws that line, and who do you trust to wield this new power?

There are enemies at our gates, to be sure. There are people who hate us and would kill me and mine to serve them and theirs. Is torture the way to find them? I don't believe so. Neither is standing with flowers at the door or expecting everyone else to have the same standards and morals as we do.
You get the info and verify. If it doesn’t pan out, you commence with your interrogations. I can no more show you where it has been useful that you can show where it hasn’t. These things aren’t of public record and shouldn’t be. When the CIA tells me what they do saves lives I believe them. I take their word over our enemies, which the likes of JPC does just the opposite.

You’re comparing a child to a dollar, to a monetary value? You are trying to put a face-value on this when I am trying to put a personal value on it. You are talking about murder; I am talking about saving innocent lives. If I believed for one second that torturing a captive to save innocents would reap positive results I would do it. When you have your child kidnapped; or let’s up the stakes, when you have intel that says a nuke is going to blow in your city there are a plethora of “IFs”. That is what drives the thought process as to how you decide to conduct interrogations.

The greater good is always just that: THE GREATER GOOD. How many died in establishing this nation for THE GREATER GOOD? How many died liberating Europe for THE GREATER GOOD? It seems there was no limit that we would stop at to ensure THE GREATER GOOD. Was THE GREATER GOOD served in these cases?

When it comes to your very own I would think there is no limit that you would stop to ensure their security. During time of war requires that we have no limits in defending our country and way of life. Bush has been blamed for not doing enough to prevent 911 and not doing enough in Iraq to stabilize it. But when extreme measures are actually used in meeting these ends, that is equally criticized. What an impossible place to be.
 

JPC sr

James P. Cusick Sr.
Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Larry Gude said:
...I see us as a civilized society fighting a society that is based on cruelty and injustice. If we're not violent towards violence we lose.
:jameo: We have no posibility of loosing to the terrorist through their violence. They are weaker then we are. When the USA uses unjust violence then we create the only posibility for the other side to win because our violence and American injustices not only undermines the USA to the rest of the World but it creates honest subversion in our own midst.

It has happened to many and it has happened to me too, as I first agreed with Bush on invading Iraq until I found out that the Bush and company would through out the rules of war and torture prisoners and submit our own soldiers to this ongoing drudgery just because Bush has to fullfill his own personal ambitions in Iraq.

If it were up to me then I would put Bush to trial as a war criminal. The criminal and cruel policies of the Bush administration has created enemies in his own back yard, and rightly so.
Larry Gude said:
That I wish to see our enemies defeated makes me untrustworthy?
:jameo: It is because your position on torture means that if you had a person in your custody then you would abuse the person and that means you are not trust worthy - that if you were given the opportunity then you would commit atrocities.
:whistle:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
That's an interesting...

JPC sr said:
: It is because your position on torture means that if you had a person in your custody then you would abuse the person and that means you are not trust worthy - that if you were given the opportunity then you would commit atrocities.
:whistle:


...logic stream; I would use torture, therefore I would always use it.

Let's see if this makes sense; You would NOT use torture, therefore you would not do everything possible to defend this nation, thus you are untrustworthy.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
JPC sr said:
:jameo: We have no posibility of loosing to the terrorist through their violence. They are weaker then we are. When the USA uses unjust violence then we create the only posibility for the other side to win because our violence and American injustices not only undermines the USA to the rest of the World but it creates honest subversion in our own midst.

Weaker how JPC? What makes them weaker? What makes us stronger? Is it our ability to sing “Kumbaya” louder? And using your rationale on “unjust violence”, when the enemy uses “unjust violence” (aka the 911 attack) on us doesn’t that create a certain possibility for us to win over them? Or are we still singing Kumbaya not matter what they do?

It has happened to many and it has happened to me too, as I first agreed with Bush on invading Iraq until I found out that the Bush and company would through out the rules of war and torture prisoners and submit our own soldiers to this ongoing drudgery just because Bush has to fullfill his own personal ambitions in Iraq.

Please outline, in detail, how Bush is fulfilling any personal ambitions? If anything this war has been a person disaster for him.

If it were up to me then I would put Bush to trial as a war criminal. The criminal and cruel policies of the Bush administration has created enemies in his own back yard, and rightly so.

If Bush is deserving of a war crimes trial what sort of trial does Bin Laden deserve? Do you place both in the same criminal category?
 

forestal

I'm the Boss of Me
Only the uneducated and vicious would ever think that torture was ever justified or would provide reliable information.

I encourage you 'Yes' voters to hand in your social security cards because you are definitely not the kind of Americans that the founding fathers thought they could entrust democracy to.
 

Dork

Highlander's MPD
forestal said:
Only the uneducated and vicious would ever think that torture was ever justified or would provide reliable information.

I encourage you 'Yes' voters to hand in your social security cards because you are definitely not the kind of Americans that the founding fathers thought they could entrust democracy to.

Footstool, why do you even waste your time posting your stupid opinion. Nobody cares what you think! Go finish huffing that can of paint and go to bed!
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
That is so fundamentally...

forestal said:
I encourage you 'Yes' voters to hand in your social security cards because you are definitely not the kind of Americans that the founding fathers thought they could entrust democracy to.

...hilarious that now I'm curious to know how many people get it?

:lmao: :killingme
 

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
forestal said:
Only the uneducated and vicious would ever think that torture was ever justified or would provide reliable information.

I encourage you 'Yes' voters to hand in your social security cards because you are definitely not the kind of Americans that the founding fathers thought they could entrust democracy to.
WTF does SS have to do with Constitutional law?

Second... The constitution isn't harmed by this since these goat humping maggots aren't citizens.


And Third.... I'll be glad to hand in my SS card when you ####### whiney-assed nannified Marxists give me back all the pilfered contributions I've made to that attrocity.



P.S. PLUS THE INTEREST DUE!
 
Last edited:
R

RadioPatrol

Guest
forestal said:
Only the uneducated and vicious would ever think that torture was ever justified or would provide reliable information.

I encourage you 'Yes' voters to hand in your social security cards because you are definitely not the kind of Americans that the founding fathers thought they could entrust democracy to.


does that mean I don' t have to pay taxes now :jet:


:whistle:
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
forestal said:
Only the uneducated and vicious would ever think that torture was ever justified or would provide reliable information.

I encourage you 'Yes' voters to hand in your social security cards because you are definitely not the kind of Americans that the founding fathers thought they could entrust democracy to.
And only you would think this has anything to do with education level. And don't bring the founding fathers into this. They were slave owners; SLAVERY... something we consider to be an abomination today; one of the most oppressive, abusive and torturous measures anyone could place on a human being.

Stop pretending like torture is something our interrogators use as a first-line tactic. Our CIA already states that they do not torture. They will also tell you that they don't play pattycake with their captives either. They will use harsh methods they are dictated by the circumstance. None of which you have the first clue about.

I want you to think back to your answer to my question about if your child was kidnapped. You couldn't answer it. Why? Is it fair to say that if you were put in that situation you might use some extreme (perhaps torture) measures to save your child's life?
 

Mikeinsmd

New Member
forestal said:
Only the uneducated and vicious would ever think that torture was ever justified or would provide reliable information.

I encourage you 'Yes' voters to hand in your social security cards because you are definitely not the kind of Americans that the founding fathers thought they could entrust democracy to.
:howdy: child molester.

Good to see you improving upon your stupidity!! Keep up the good work.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
forestal said:
Only the uneducated and vicious would ever think that torture was ever justified or would provide reliable information.

I encourage you 'Yes' voters to hand in your social security cards because you are definitely not the kind of Americans that the founding fathers thought they could entrust democracy to.
:roflmao:

I'd given up on this thread. Glad I gave it another look. :lol:
 

Dork

Highlander's MPD
Mikeinsmd said:
:howdy: child molester.

Good to see you improving upon your stupidity!! Keep up the good work.
Mike, I think you're right. I just found this article on FORESTAL....

Dean Arthur Forestal, a child molester with convictions in several states over three decades and a knack for avoiding prison, was sentenced Monday to 152 years to life for sexually abusing two 12-year-old boys.
Forestal, 35, shackled at the wrists and using a cane, did not speak before his sentencing in St. Mary’s County, MD Superior Court on 11 felony counts of child molestation and one misdemeanor charge of child pornography possession.
He chuckled when Judge Edward Lee asked if he knew about his right to appeal, answering in the affirmative that he knows the procedure.
Forestal, who acted as his own lawyer in October trial, routinely files mountains of legal arguments in his cases and has overturned two prior convictions.
Lee said that despite Forestal's legal savvy in getting some previous charges dismissed, he will spend the rest of his days filing appeals from a prison cell.
"For all that above-average intelligence and charm, I have a couple of faults (with you) — an English teacher might call them tragic faults," Lee said. "You have no empathy for your victims; that's not particularly unusual. And you cannot see yourself as others see you."
After the hearing, Forestal leaned on his cane and hobbled back to the locked holding area, apparently joking with a deputy before turning back to flash a grin at investigators.
Melinda Hall, the public defender assigned to represent Forestal at the sentencing, said she spoke with him briefly after the hearing and described his mood as "accepting."
"There's nothing that surprised him," she Hall, adding that the appeals process was already under way. "He knew exactly what the judge was going to do before it happened."
When Forestal was arrested in June 2005, investigators found a graphic 456-page memoir describing sexual abuse, binders full of child pornography and 1,500 notebook pages with headings including "blond boys,""no, but yes boys," and "best of the best, 13 and under."
Forestal, who had at least three molestation convictions and a dozen arrests over three decades, abused many as 100 boys in eight U.S. states, Mexico and Brazil from 1969 to 2005, prosecutors said.
Forestal told jurors that he was innocent and maligned by a society that doesn't accept men who love boys.
During his testimony, Forestal said the memoir and notebook entries were fiction.
He blamed roommate JPC, Jr— also a convicted child molester — for the child porn. Forestal also said he could not have molested the two San Jose boys, who are cousins, because he was either at a construction job or bedridden with a bad back at the time.
Outside court Monday, prosecutor Steve Fein said he stands by his assertion that Forestal molested hundreds of boys, even though other victims weren't included in the San Jose case.
Fein said between 30 and 40 people have come forward since Forestal's arrest to claim they were also victimized, and some of the details of their stories have been corroborated.
Fein said he did everything in his power to ensure Forestal had a fair trial that would hold up on appeal.
"Look at his demeanor in court — he's smiling, he's telling everyone he's going to appeal and he's going to win. In his mind, he's the smartest one in the room," Fein said. "That's his downfall — his narcissism. My hope is that everything he does from now on will be from a prison cell."
Although police say Forestal appears to have spent much of the past three decades years in California, he has also been arrested on child molestation charges in New York, Idaho, Oregon, Arkansas and Washington. He has lived in Nevada, Texas and Washington.
In 1984, the Calvert County Court upheld a 1978 conviction for molesting two 14-year-old boys and characterized Forestal as a "repeat offender" who "uses his intelligence to take advantage of the weak and oppressed and those who are in need."
Forestal "frequents areas where young boys may be found, befriends boys with no father figure in the home, entices them from their homes, lowers their natural inhibitions through the use of drugs and alcohol, and commits sex acts upon them," the justices wrote.
At the time of his arrest in 2005, he was wanted in Oregon on felony sexual assault charges involving a minor. After serving prison time in Idaho for child molestation in the late 1970s, he lived in Brazil, and was extradited from there to Idaho again in the late 1980s.
Forestal has used aliases including Dean Harmon and Dean Miller. He apparently gained the trust of victims and parents by working as a home renovation contractor. He didn't register as a sex offender so he did not appear in the "Megan's Law" databases in California or other states, police said.
Charles County Sheriff’s office got involved after Forestal allegedly befriended the two Waldorf boys with gifts, invited them to his house for video games and movies, and molested them.

Since his arrest in 1995, Forestal has been confined to the Charles County Detention Center where he spends most of his time on his favorite web site, SOMD.COM.
 
Last edited:

JPC sr

James P. Cusick Sr.
Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

:larry: Dork

It is amazing that you would go to so much trouble to write such a big lie.

Simply amazing. :larry:
 

Mikeinsmd

New Member
JPC sr said:
:larry: Dork

It is amazing that you would go to so much trouble to write such a big lie.

Simply amazing. :larry:
But JPC, if Forestool can say Bush lied without proof, we can call him a child molester without proof.
 
Top