BF2S Forums Did the US torture it's Navy Pilots?

AussieReaper wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Yeah. And they do have a court system to appeal to should they be tortured. Military tribunals. Exactly the sort of thing this guy is asking for.... However the Gitmo detainees didn't have rights apparently. The right to a fair trial, the right to appeal, etc

Or a right to a mob execution, body drag event or perhaps the newer high-tech internet beheading?

DB torture isn't right just because your enemies are bad. How can you justify your own actions after having to lower your own standards to meet those of the enemy?

Show me a video of where we behead an enemy-combatant or drag his carcass through the streets..  In my eyes we haven't lowered our standards to meet those of the enemy.  We've used proven techniques to 'defeat' those of the enemy.  I don't give a flying fuck about those who have done or wished harm on any of my countrymen.

Fuck I got jewed when I went to SERE school.. I didn't get waterboarded.


i'm missing out on a class action lawsuit.


god damn it anyway.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Show me a video of where we behead an enemy-combatant or drag his carcass through the streets..  In my eyes we haven't lowered our standards to meet those of the enemy.  We've used proven techniques to 'defeat' those of the enemy.  I don't give a flying fuck about those who have done or wished harm on any of my countrymen.

You lowered your standards the minute you started torturing prisoners and using "evidence" obtained through torture against them. I'm not saying you went as low to slaughter innocents now am I?

As for the "proven" techniques, they have also been proven to be ineffectual by many, many studies.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I don't give a flying fuck about those who have done or wished harm on any of my countrymen.

Maybe you should.

Kmarion wrote:

So you say one is not torture because it was required by their Military commanders? I see where you are going but it isn't like these guys were given many options. The fact of the matter is that this was done with the deliberate intent of breaking a persons will. The same exact reason they do it everyone else. ..the logic, procedure, and goal is not torture for the enlisted man? It may be true that you are less sympathetic to one, ala they were asking for it. However torture is a procedure, not a choice.

No, I am not saying it is not torture because it was required by their commanders. I am saying it stops being torture the minute the soldiers wants it to end. The same can't be said for those held as enemy combatants.

Of course the logic, procedure and goal of the torture is different between the two. As I said, the goal against the enemy was to break them. The goal against your own soldiers was to reach that breaking point but not cross it. Surely you understand this?

Kmarion wrote:

You have the same experience, feelings, and reactions no matter what it was that got you there.

No you don't. Your reaction might be "stop I've had enough". Guess how differently that scenario plays out for the solider compared to the prisoner. The feelings are different, knowing that this is training compared to not knowing how long the process might continue.

The soldiers had a choice. What choices did the alleged combatants have?

Kmarion wrote:

They can be prosecuted and silenced under the grounds of divulging national training secrets. Did you read the entire letter? Weren't some of the detainees released after trial? .. the same military tribunals you so graciously offered our tortured navy.

Those military tribunals were separate to the courts system afforded enlisted US personnel. They were even created, dismantled by Congress and then re-introduced specifically for the alleged combatants. From your own source:

The ruling means the Bush administration will have to adopt a military commission system for trying accused terrorists that meets international standards.

The court's ruling also establishes that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals involving "enemy combatants" held overseas in U.S. military custody.

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Uh yeah but when we were water boarding our own it was to train and teach them when we water bordered our captured enemies it was to break them.

Actually, the intent in SERE is to break the trainees, as well. So they understand their limits.

Sounds a bit like Hell Week

FEOS wrote:

So you know a lot of pilots who've been through the program, do you? Of course you don't.

And how many pilots do you know who were waterboarded 100+ times?
How many pilots died during the interrogation training?

To be honest with you, after watching the video of that journalist being waterboarded, it looks pretty horrific in any scenario.

It is horrific, but there is a difference between knowing its an exercise and will stop if theres a problem - and knowing it could continue until you're dead.

Dilbert_X wrote:

To be honest with you, after watching the video of that journalist being waterboarded, it looks pretty horrific in any scenario.

It is horrific, but there is a difference between knowing its an exercise and will stop if theres a problem - and knowing it could continue until you're dead.

Given what he said about it, it sounds like all thoughts go out of the window when it starts.

Its banned across the world because its inhuman, if the US chooses to do it to their own citizens, and they line up to have it done thats up to them.

FEOS wrote:

As for choice (like choosing to say "I quit, I want to go home"), the detainees had choices, too. Choices that would've stopped the waterboarding or other techniques. That comparison does nothing for the argument it is attempting to support...it does far more to support the counter.

Hmm yeah, their choice was to give up what information they had I suppose. But it's still not anyway near the same as choosing to partake in it. At the end of the day, the US military is still a professional/volunteer military and they can still opt out, it's different than it being done against your will

I dunno. Waterboarding doesn't seem that bad and I lol'd when I heard the amount of times they did it to that fat hairy bastard Khalid Douche Mohammed in a month, but if the USA could fight this war on terror whilst keeping its moral high ground it would work out much better in the long run and make things much more valid, no point fighting those guys if you're gonna just be like them (well not exactly, obviously not as bad as them, but you get my point)


When something is done against your will, even sex, it's always worse...well at least... that's what she said ...

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-04-24 06:25:33)

FEOS wrote:

As for choice (like choosing to say "I quit, I want to go home"), the detainees had choices, too.

Except many of them were tortured as part of the 'softening up', before they were even asked any questions.

FEOS wrote:

The number of times is irrelevant. It's about breaking the prisoner.

Then US pilots must be pussies if being waterboarded once breaks them while an Arab can survive 100+.

They signed up for it did they not? The issue is consent. They made their choice and it was up to them, some girls get their kicks from simulated rape... does that make it okay when it's done to girls who do not want to be subjected to it?

M.O.A.B wrote:

Even prisoners who are waterboarded aren't likely to be killed by it, after all, the technique is being used to break their will and give up the info, killing them isn't going to help you grab that info.

That's all completely irrelevant.

It boils down to whether or not you feel comfortable living in a society where it is considered okay to physically torment potentially innocent people or not. As someone who had relations who were interned during the troubles I do not but clearly many people here are.