Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Finn 7 five 11

So the government is allowed to torture?

Recommended Posts

Zook

It doesn't sit well with me torturing suspects who could potentially be innocent. I agree with most of the views expressed already in that I think it is okay to torture, but I think it should be used against people you are sure, or are reasonably sure that they have been involved.

 

I've seen so many left-wing people commenting on this issue saying that the US are now as bad as the terrorist and fundamentalists. They are not really though are they. I don't know where they come up with this sh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Part of the issue actually determinig what is torture and what is permissible interrogation. Sleep deprivation isn't traditionally seen as torture, for instance, but under certain conditions it probably amounts to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoadRunner71

I stand with Nice Guy Eddie here.

 

 

 

[...]

I've seen so many left-wing people commenting on this issue saying that the US are now as bad as the terrorist and fundamentalists. They are not really though are they. I don't know where they come up with this sh*t.

Considering that the US has a long record of financing paramilitary guerillas and death squads which directly targeted the civilian population, and even spreading out on purpose that fundamentalism that now has turn against us, I don't think they'd be too far from the definition of terrorist. The fact that you pay other people to make the nasty work for you doesn't make you any better. But I guess that's another story...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DareYokel

I'm surprised the media stopped calling torture "enhanced interrogation technique". America is usually the land of euphemisms.

Edited by The Yokel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Scratch

Tsk tsk tsk, physical torture is useless. Maiming's what I prefer, psychologically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shhhhhhhhh

Majority of those people are the scummiest, grimiest, and worst people in the world. In my opinion, they deserve every bit of the hell they were put through(the guilty ones, anyway). Some of them gave up legitimate information during the torture. I mean, if I have to rectally feed/rehydrate someone to possibly save multiple lives or to help stop an even worse criminal from doing whatever his evil mind decides, you're damn right I'll shove that tube right up someone's ass. These folks aren't there because they stole a credit card. They are there because they are the worst of the worst international criminals. It's inhumane to torture? Give me a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

The CIA also imprisoned family members of the "suspects" just to build up pressure. Who on earth can give them the right to do that. They are the simply criminals.

 

image-787468-galleryV9-ovxy.jpg

 

As pointed out in the "share your feelings" topic already, I am totally disgusted about the CIA methods revealed in the report, not that I was believing they were not guilty before.

 

Would be the best thing ever to see Bush and this dick ... Cheney to face justice and rot in a dirty prison cell.

 

I am very sceptical towards the argument: "We know who the bad guys are, there was no trial against the suspects but trust us we know they must be guilty. We are only doing that for the freedom of our great country."

 

Just look how many innocent people have been killed by American drones.

 

Here are just a few examples what the CIA did:

 

image-787451-galleryV9-wcwx.jpgimage-787514-galleryV9-mruj.jpgimage-787457-galleryV9-veyd.jpg

Edited by Stephan90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shhhhhhhhh

^ disgusting comments like that one above mine of people who believe only guilty people get caught, imprisoned, and tortured by the CIA make me sick. There are plenty of comments like this.

 

As pointed out in the "share your feelings" topic already, I am totally disgusted about the CIA methods revealed in the report, not that I was believing they were not guilty before.

 

Would be the best thing ever to see Bush and this dick ... Cheney to face justice and rot in a dirty prison cell.

 

I am very sceptical towards the argument: "We know who the bad guys are, there was no trial against the suspects but trust us we know they must be guilty. We are only doing that for the freedom of our great country."

 

Just look how many innocent people have been killed by American drones.

 

Here are just a few examples what the CIA did:

 

image-787469-galleryV9-ogfg.jpgimage-787514-galleryV9-mruj.jpgimage-787457-galleryV9-veyd.jpg

Woah, slow down there homeboy. I didn't say only guilty people are caught & tortured. Please re-read my statement. But that's cool, you don't agree. Congrats bro. Kudos to ya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Whilst I largely agree with your sentiments, this:

 

Just look how many innocent people have been killed by American drones.

Doesn't really make much sense in the context of your argument as the civilian casualty rate from unmanned strikes is atypically low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

Whilst I largely agree with your sentiments, this:

 

Just look how many innocent people have been killed by American drones.

Doesn't really make much sense in the context of your argument as the civilian casualty rate from unmanned strikes is atypically low.

 

 

"low rate"? disgusting. this article from February 2013 mentions 3000 dead people in Pakistan of whom 20% were civilians. That's 600 innocent people who died only in Pakistan. And until now more civilians died. Who on earth gives the United States the right to do that. These are war crimes.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/pakistan-bis-zu-3000-tote-durch-drohnen-angriffe-a-882311.html

 

article from July 2013, 700 dead civilians including 94 kids.

 

http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2013-07/geheimpapier-drohnen-angriffe-pakistan-zivilisten-kinder

 

@ MissAmyx0, you don't provide any proof how many of these people ever had a trial and were judged guilty. You just say that the mojority of them was guilty. That doesn't justify the torture program at all.

Edited by Stephan90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zook

I stand with Nice Guy Eddie here.

 

 

 

[...]

I've seen so many left-wing people commenting on this issue saying that the US are now as bad as the terrorist and fundamentalists. They are not really though are they. I don't know where they come up with this sh*t.

Considering that the US has a long record of financing paramilitary guerillas and death squads which directly targeted the civilian population, and even spreading out on purpose that fundamentalism that now has turn against us, I don't think they'd be too far from the definition of terrorist. The fact that you pay other people to make the nasty work for you doesn't make you any better. But I guess that's another story...

I don't recall ever claiming that the US were not terrorists, not that I think they are.

 

Which Paramilitary guerrillas and death squads have the US financed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ai®a©ob®a

 

When they fly planes full of people into buildings, they deserve to get tortured so that we can learn about their network. Although this is ethically wrong, its is politicly and strategically right.

What about innocents being wrongfully associated?

 

Not to mention more than 3/4 of the info they extract though those methods are often false so it serves no real purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

Just want to add that Rockstar were spot on with their

torture mission

in GTA V, which brought the topic to the media headlines before the report was released. Well done!

Edited by Stephan90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shhhhhhhhh

@Stephan, no that's not what I said.

"Majority are scum...deserve every bit of hell they were put through (THE GUILTY ONES ANYWAY)..."

To clarify that a bit further, because maybe I didn't word it clearly (sounded different in my head), I don't believe all were guilty. I believe a lot probably are guilty and therefore those people do deserve the torture. And those that aren't guilty are probably still really scummy people for whatever reason. I'm sure there were some totally innocent folks in the mix though, and that's awful for them. That's just how I feel about it. You don't have to agree. It's really nbd if you do or don't. Regardless, it happened. It's over and done with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

"low rate"?

"Atypically low" is not the same thing as "low". If I weighed 30 stone, then lost 5, my weight would be "atypically low" but not "low". But given your propensity to just pretend people are saying what you imagine them to be rather than actually looking at what they say, not unexpected.

 

this article from February 2013 mentions 3000 dead people in Pakistan of whom 20% were civilians.

Oh, nice, a vague "up to" figure with no actual citation and no supporting evidence. Just the kind of thing Germany's version of the Daily Mail likes to publish. And even in the event that it were true, a one-in-five civilian casualty rate for airstrikes is atypically low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

@Stephan, no that's not what I said.

"Majority are scum...deserve every bit of hell they were put through (THE GUILTY ONES ANYWAY)..."

To clarify that a bit further, because maybe I didn't word it clearly (sounded different in my head), I don't believe all were guilty. I believe a lot probably are guilty and therefore those people do deserve the torture. And those that aren't guilty are probably still really scummy people for whatever reason. I'm sure there were some totally innocent folks in the mix though, and that's awful for them. That's just how I feel about it. You don't have to agree. It's really nbd if you do or don't. Regardless, it happened. It's over and done with.

 

Sure there were innocent people who were captured and tortured.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

 

"low rate"?

"Atypically low" is not the same thing as "low". If I weighed 30 stone, then lost 5, my weight would be "atypically low" but not "low". But given your propensity to just pretend people are saying what you imagine them to be rather than actually looking at what they say, not unexpected.

 

this article from February 2013 mentions 3000 dead people in Pakistan of whom 20% were civilians.

Oh, nice, a vague "up to" figure with no actual citation and no supporting evidence. Just the kind of thing Germany's version of the Daily Mail likes to publish. And even in the event that it were true, a one-in-five civilian casualty rate for airstrikes is atypically low.

 

 

I can't understand how so many civilians can be killed when there is a target person in a spacious open location and someone trained controls the drone. Is there an international mandate allowing the United States to go on a hunt in foreign countries?! No. Even 10% dead civilians would be too much. Either clearly identify terrorists or stop killing people on suspicion.

 

From Wikipedia: "It is stated in a Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) report that of all the drone attack victims since 2004, more than 76% of the dead fall in the legal grey zone, 22% are confirmed civilians (included 5% minors) and only the remaining 1.5% are high-profile targets."

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/drone-strikes-interactive-visualization-pitch

Edited by Stephan90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Scratch

When you're going after this kind of people you have to assume they're all guilty. Intelligence agencies aren't exactly known to hold back when it comes to things like these. There was a CIA safehouse/holding facility in my country a few years ago. The whole place had a factory as a front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

The BIJ report has been discussed extensively in another thread. Their methodology basically comprised of categorising anyone who couldn't be linked with a specific militant group via open source investigation as "grey area". They didn't fully explain their methodology for identifying that people weren't militants, probably because no such methodology can really be definitive thanks to the problems posed by any "negative proof" theory. Their figures certainly don't tally with the largest or most widely regarded aggregators of strikes like Pitch Interactive, the Long War Journal, et cetera.

 

But it's all largely moot, as is the rest of your response, because it has little directly to do with the subject and no relevance at all to the point I was making, which was that your "look at drone strikes" comment was silly because they have a lower collateral damage rate than traditional airstrikes, just they're more maligned thanks to a huge number of people irrationally afraid of them due to ignorance and false analogy with other unmanned vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

The BIJ report has been discussed extensively in another thread. Their methodology basically comprised of categorising anyone who couldn't be linked with a specific militant group via open source investigation as "grey area". They didn't fully explain their methodology for identifying that people weren't militants, probably because no such methodology can really be definitive thanks to the problems posed by any "negative proof" theory. Their figures certainly don't tally with the largest or most widely regarded aggregators of strikes like Pitch Interactive, the Long War Journal, et cetera.

 

But it's all largely moot, as is the rest of your response, because it has little directly to do with the subject and no relevance at all to the point I was making, which was that your "look at drone strikes" comment was silly because they have a lower collateral damage rate than traditional airstrikes, just they're more maligned thanks to a huge number of people irrationally afraid of them due to ignorance and false analogy with other unmanned vehicles.

Why the hell do people who are against drone killings need to prove anything? There is no international mandate for this that would justify the slightest bit of colleteral damage. Why don't the USA document every single casualty and prove that they have killed only guilty terrorists?

 

I see a big analogy in drone killings and what the CIA has done. In both cases things are done in the war against terrorism, which violate international law and where the government has simply taken a right for themselves which doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Why the hell do people who are against drone killings need to prove anything?

Because moral justification isn't an excuse for factual inaccuracy. You're deflecting; yet again you're not actually addressing a point related to the comments I'm making. I'm neither providing a justification for them or even discussing the moral aspects. I'm simply pointing out that your analogy was sh*t.

 

There is no international mandate for this that would justify the slightest bit of colleteral damage.

This is where things get interesting. Your point here is very muddled, to the point of almost complete incoherence. You say that there is "no international mandate justifying...collateral damage" and yet there is. The Rome Statute is very clear that collatoral damage is an accepted consequence of conflict, so this statement is simply factually wrong.

 

Now the actual question of importance is whether drone strikes are legally justifiable use of force, and whether they constitute "conflict" under the Rome Statute. There's a wealth of academic opinion from both sides on this but nothing that could be constituted empirical fact. That's s different debate entirely and a bit of a minefield even for the initiated.

 

Not sure it it's an issue of nuance, semantics, language, or simply a case of your emotional whims running ahead of reality but yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
feckyerlife

this report only came out because Gruber was testifying on ACA


The CIA also imprisoned family members of the "suspects" just to build up pressure. Who on earth can give them the right to do that. They are the simply criminals.

 

image-787468-galleryV9-ovxy.jpg

 

As pointed out in the "share your feelings" topic already, I am totally disgusted about the CIA methods revealed in the report, not that I was believing they were not guilty before.

 

Would be the best thing ever to see Bush and this dick ... Cheney to face justice and rot in a dirty prison cell.

 

I am very sceptical towards the argument: "We know who the bad guys are, there was no trial against the suspects but trust us we know they must be guilty. We are only doing that for the freedom of our great country."

 

Just look how many innocent people have been killed by American drones.

 

Here are just a few examples what the CIA did:

 

image-787451-galleryV9-wcwx.jpgimage-787514-galleryV9-mruj.jpgimage-787457-galleryV9-veyd.jpg

blow up our towers and cities and we will kill your family, seems fair game to me

Edited by feckyerlife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

I was refering to the drone kliings not collateral damage in general. Should have wrote it in other words.

 

But nice that you allow me to regard the drone kllings as illegal.

 

I just added were there is the analogy: both is related to the war on terror, both is illegal and also wrong atleast according to my ethical compass, and in both cases the US government simply take rights that don't exist.

 

 

 

Back to the torture. Obama on the issue.

 

“It is important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job those folks had,” he said. “A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.”

 

“It is important, when we look back, to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell, and the Pentagon had been hit, and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent.”

 

“We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened.”

 

My question is why does the current president justifies the torturers when he even admits that it is against their values. Why doesn't he say, that the responsible CIA members would have had the moral duty to say: "No, this is against our values." and to make everything public. Because everyone has to know what the methods are and that people who were not proven guilty are tortured? Why doesn't have Obama here the balls to make a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
feckyerlife

I was refering to the drone kliings not collateral damage in general. Should have wrote it in other words.

 

But nice that you allow me to regard the drone kllings as illegal.

 

I just added were there is the analogy: both is related to the war on terror, both is illegal and also wrong atleast according to my ethical compass, and in both cases the US government simply take rights that don't exist.

 

 

Actually i am very anti drone killings, i feel like they do way more harm and damage then they do good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90
blow up our towers and cities and we will kill your family, seems fair game to me

 

What a disgusting "moral" you display, (if it is meant not in an ironically way) even though it is totally unrelated to what is written in the report snippet.

Edited by Stephan90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Because it's not in a President's interest to sh*t all over the intelligence community. Well, not too much anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
feckyerlife

 

blow up our towers and cities and we will kill your family, seems fair game to me

 

What a disgusting "moral" you display, (if it is meant not in an ironically way) even though it is totally unrelated to what is written in the report snippet.

 

its a biased report, not a bipartisan report, no one should believe it at 100%

Edited by feckyerlife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephan90

 

 

blow up our towers and cities and we will kill your family, seems fair game to me

 

What a disgusting "moral" you display, (if it is meant not in an ironically way) even though it is totally unrelated to what is written in the report snippet.

 

its a biased report, not a bipartisan report, no one should believe it at 100%

 

 

The republicans could have participated in creating the report but didn't chose to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
feckyerlife

 

 

 

blow up our towers and cities and we will kill your family, seems fair game to me

 

What a disgusting "moral" you display, (if it is meant not in an ironically way) even though it is totally unrelated to what is written in the report snippet.

 

its a biased report, not a bipartisan report, no one should believe it at 100%

 

 

The republicans could have participated in creating the report but didn't chose to do so.

 

i dont think they were giving a chance, this report was done months ago., there was a reason why it was released the day it was. because of jonathan grubers testimony on ACA which would be damaging to teh democrats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Neither political party "participated" in the report directly and nor should they have. It was supposed to be written by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee. It's majority Democrat, yes, but the minority Republican group were meant to be involved in it.

 

In the end party politics got the better of them and they pulled support for it. Only Snowe and Collins was brave enough to defy the party and participate or vote in favour, and the former likely only because she was due to retire.

 

The Republicans had every opportunity to participate in producing the report but actively chose not to, going as far as to dissuade committee members who wanted to from doing so. Likely because of how damaging the revelations would be to senior members linked with the Bush administration. Their intent was to kill it dead and thankfully they failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.