Off Duty Forums >> Cops in the War on Terror >> Who here thinks harsh interrorgation of terrorists is acceptable>

+5

Who here thinks harsh interrorgation of terrorists is acceptable>

2,705 Views
144 Replies Flag as inappropriate
Photo_user_banned_big

268 posts

back to top

Posted over 6 years ago

 

Who here thinks intensive interrorgation of terrorist prisoners is acceptable?

Don_27t_20tred_20on_20me_max50

1252 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

firefly241 says ...



Who here thinks intensive interrorgation of terrorist prisoners is acceptable?



I do...but to a limit. I believe that we, as a NATO/UN participant, have a moral obligation to be ethical in our interrigation techniques. However, I beleive that there are certain limits as to what you can accomplish from "nicer" interrogation techniques.


¡GØÐ HņH ÑØ ƒÜR¥ †HÂÑ À Pϧ§ËР؃ƒ PÁRņRØØPËR!

Ríø†!™

Large_security_enforcement_officer_badge_max50

2570 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Riot says ...



firefly241 says ...



Who here thinks intensive interrorgation of terrorist prisoners is acceptable?



I do...but to a limit. I believe that we, as a NATO/UN participant, have a moral obligation to be ethical in our interrigation techniques. However, I beleive that there are certain limits as to what you can accomplish from "nicer" interrogation techniques.



Like looping the Red Hot Chillipeppers, for example. Or is that too cruel?


In God we trust...all others we run through NCIC

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

I think harsh interrogation of terrorists is more than acceptable. I think that whatever means necessary should be used.

Large_security_enforcement_officer_badge_max50

2570 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

I personally wouldn't have used the RHCP though. I would have looped The Village People, or Smashing Pumpkins. Yes, The Smashing Pumpkins would be my choice. That whiney voice should make anyone give up the info asap, or try to off themselves after a few minutes of that torture.


In God we trust...all others we run through NCIC

-64 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Riot says ...



firefly241 says ...



Who here thinks intensive interrorgation of terrorist prisoners is acceptable?



I do...but to a limit. I believe that we, as a NATO/UN participant, have a moral obligation to be ethical in our interrigation techniques. However, I beleive that there are certain limits as to what you can accomplish from "nicer" interrogation techniques.



REMEMBER, THIS IS TERRORISM, a way of life be thrown down on necks, not a state declared war. There is no protection for prisioners here.  Red Cross and Nato/UN are making up as they go. We have been way to PC and nixe already.  These people will smile in your face, then skin you if they got an opportunity 5 minutes later.  To nice, be in social work.  This are people with no conscience, the thrill of smelling blood and the exciment when it comes to the dead body count. Let the Red Cross/ NATO/un concern themselves with natural disasters, there's plenty to go around.

Soccertaz_max50

177 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

When you say terrorists, I am presuming you mean those of so called Muslim faith. I say this as " the terrorist" has a very broad application.


Also, what is classed as harsh?


Different methods are needed for the different mind set.


ie........the suicide bomber, by nature is a coward. he has little formal military training, apart from basics in fighting, and weaponry skills. Then you have the insurgents, these are, or can be, very highly trained individuals. Better than some countries military. Some of them are veterans of the Afghan war, which makes them battle hardened operators, and very tough cookies indeed. Some of their warfare skills and training can be compared to SF`s in some ways. They will probably have recieved some sort of teachings in the art of interrorgation and methods used. So, again, different methods would be needed.


Imo, use any methods at your disposal to get the desired results, and f*%$k the PC brigade.


Utrinque Paratus

Photo_user_banned_big

268 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

taz1964 says ...



When you say terrorists, I am presuming you mean those of so called Muslim faith. I say this as " the terrorist" has a very broad application.


Also, what is classed as harsh?


Different methods are needed for the different mind set.


ie........the suicide bomber, by nature is a coward. he has little formal military training, apart from basics in fighting, and weaponry skills. Then you have the insurgents, these are, or can be, very highly trained individuals. Better than some countries military. Some of them are veterans of the Afghan war, which makes them battle hardened operators, and very tough cookies indeed. Some of their warfare skills and training can be compared to SF`s in some ways. They will probably have recieved some sort of teachings in the art of interrorgation and methods used. So, again, different methods would be needed.


Imo, use any methods at your disposal to get the desired results, and f*%$k the PC brigade.


 


Insurgents or terrorists or any non-uniformed combatant does not qualify for protection under the Geneva convention therefore I believe they have no rights or protections of any kind and deserve no humane or human treatment.


Large_security_enforcement_officer_badge_max50

2570 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

firefly241 says ...



taz1964 says ...



When you say terrorists, I am presuming you mean those of so called Muslim faith. I say this as " the terrorist" has a very broad application.


Also, what is classed as harsh?


Different methods are needed for the different mind set.


ie........the suicide bomber, by nature is a coward. he has little formal military training, apart from basics in fighting, and weaponry skills. Then you have the insurgents, these are, or can be, very highly trained individuals. Better than some countries military. Some of them are veterans of the Afghan war, which makes them battle hardened operators, and very tough cookies indeed. Some of their warfare skills and training can be compared to SF`s in some ways. They will probably have recieved some sort of teachings in the art of interrorgation and methods used. So, again, different methods would be needed.


Imo, use any methods at your disposal to get the desired results, and f*%$k the PC brigade.


 


Insurgents or terrorists or any non-uniformed combatant does not qualify for protection under the Geneva convention therefore I believe they have no rights or protections of any kind and deserve no humane or human treatment.




TALK, DAMN YOU!!!


beatdown.gif beatdown image by atthedrivein04


In God we trust...all others we run through NCIC

Photo_user_banned_big

268 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

SEO says ...



firefly241 says ...



taz1964 says ...



When you say terrorists, I am presuming you mean those of so called Muslim faith. I say this as " the terrorist" has a very broad application.


Also, what is classed as harsh?


Different methods are needed for the different mind set.


ie........the suicide bomber, by nature is a coward. he has little formal military training, apart from basics in fighting, and weaponry skills. Then you have the insurgents, these are, or can be, very highly trained individuals. Better than some countries military. Some of them are veterans of the Afghan war, which makes them battle hardened operators, and very tough cookies indeed. Some of their warfare skills and training can be compared to SF`s in some ways. They will probably have recieved some sort of teachings in the art of interrorgation and methods used. So, again, different methods would be needed.


Imo, use any methods at your disposal to get the desired results, and f*%$k the PC brigade.


 


Insurgents or terrorists or any non-uniformed combatant does not qualify for protection under the Geneva convention therefore I believe they have no rights or protections of any kind and deserve no humane or human treatment.




TALK, DAMN YOU!!!


beatdown.gif beatdown image by atthedrivein04In previous wars when an enemy combatant was discovered behind our lines, he was shot at once as a spy.  This is allowed under the Geneva Convention.


Large_security_enforcement_officer_badge_max50

2570 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

firefly241 says ...



SEO says ...



firefly241 says ...



taz1964 says ...



When you say terrorists, I am presuming you mean those of so called Muslim faith. I say this as " the terrorist" has a very broad application.


Also, what is classed as harsh?


Different methods are needed for the different mind set.


ie........the suicide bomber, by nature is a coward. he has little formal military training, apart from basics in fighting, and weaponry skills. Then you have the insurgents, these are, or can be, very highly trained individuals. Better than some countries military. Some of them are veterans of the Afghan war, which makes them battle hardened operators, and very tough cookies indeed. Some of their warfare skills and training can be compared to SF`s in some ways. They will probably have recieved some sort of teachings in the art of interrorgation and methods used. So, again, different methods would be needed.


Imo, use any methods at your disposal to get the desired results, and f*%$k the PC brigade.


 


Insurgents or terrorists or any non-uniformed combatant does not qualify for protection under the Geneva convention therefore I believe they have no rights or protections of any kind and deserve no humane or human treatment.




TALK, DAMN YOU!!!


beatdown.gif beatdown image by atthedrivein04In previous wars when an enemy combatant was discovered behind our lines, he was shot at once as a spy.  This is allowed under the Geneva Convention.




Where are the lines in the war on terror? Abroad? In the States?


In God we trust...all others we run through NCIC

Photo_user_banned_big

268 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

According to the Geneva Convention a person in order to be protected as a lawful combatant must fit this criteria:


 


To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:



  1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict

  2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces

    • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    • that of carrying arms openly;

    • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.



  3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

  4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

 


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


 


 


Al Quaeda does not qualify for this, thus they are spies or terrorists and can be shot at once

Large_security_enforcement_officer_badge_max50

2570 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

firefly241 says ...



According to the Geneva Convention a person in order to be protected as a lawful combatant must fit this criteria:


 


To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:



  1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict

  2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces

    • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    • that of carrying arms openly;

    • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.



  3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

  4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


 


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


 


 


Al Quaeda does not qualify for this, thus they are spies or terrorists and can be shot at once



Under what conditions? If some dude is running toward a crowd screaming "Allahlalalalaaaa!", is that reasonable grounds for shooting him dead? You didn't answer my first question though. WHERE are the lines in the war on terror? In Iraq and Afganistan, there are obvious lines. But in the States or another country where there is no active military on the ground blowing sh*t up?


In God we trust...all others we run through NCIC

Soccertaz_max50

177 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

In previous wars when an enemy combatant was discovered behind our lines, he was shot at once as a spy.  This is allowed under the Geneva Convention.


One can only be regarded "a spy" if caught behind enemy lines, and out of uniform. Of  those detainees captured and imprisoned at Gitmo, none were in the uniform of a genuine military force, so they should not be covered by the Geneva Convention, anyway. 


Utrinque Paratus

Soccertaz_max50

177 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Damn, you beat me to it.lol


Utrinque Paratus

Photo_user_banned_big

268 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

taz1964 says ...



Damn, you beat me to it.lol



Yeah, International law is an area of interest to me especially since I think its crap.

Soccertaz_max50

177 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

firefly241 says ...



taz1964 says ...



Damn, you beat me to it.lol



Yeah, International law is an area of interest to me especially since I think its crap.


International law cannot be that crap, broadley speaking. International law has bonded many countries military interests and support.



Utrinque Paratus

Photo_user_banned_big

268 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

taz1964 says ...



firefly241 says ...



taz1964 says ...



Damn, you beat me to it.lol



Yeah, International law is an area of interest to me especially since I think its crap.


International law cannot be that crap, broadley speaking. International law has bonded many countries military interests and support.




No, it is meaningless when you are the only idiot followng the rules

Large_security_enforcement_officer_badge_max50

2570 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Did I miss the answer to my question?


In God we trust...all others we run through NCIC

Soccertaz_max50

177 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

firefly241 says ...



taz1964 says ...



firefly241 says ...



taz1964 says ...



Damn, you beat me to it.lol



Yeah, International law is an area of interest to me especially since I think its crap.


International law cannot be that crap, broadley speaking. International law has bonded many countries military interests and support.




No, it is meaningless when you are the only idiot followng the rules



Only one following the rules? Then it can`t be international then. I am sorry, but I don`t understand the comment. Who`s the only idiot? and  only one following which rules?  


Utrinque Paratus

Photo_user_banned_big

268 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

SEO says ...



firefly241 says ...



According to the Geneva Convention a person in order to be protected as a lawful combatant must fit this criteria:


 


To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:



  1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict

  2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces

    • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

    • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

    • that of carrying arms openly;

    • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.



  3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

  4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


 


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


 


 


Al Quaeda does not qualify for this, thus they are spies or terrorists and can be shot at once



Under what conditions? If some dude is running toward a crowd screaming "Allahlalalalaaaa!", is that reasonable grounds for shooting him dead? You didn't answer my first question though. WHERE are the lines in the war on terror? In Iraq and Afganistan, there are obvious lines. But in the States or another country where there is no active military on the ground blowing sh*t up?



Thats a good question, and the answer in my opinion based on what I have read is that this a new kind of war where the classical paradigms do not apply.  This supports my position in that the Geneva Convention was intended for classical war between nation states and not against criminal thugs like Al-Quaeda.

Photo_user_banned_big

268 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

taz1964 says ...



firefly241 says ...



taz1964 says ...



firefly241 says ...



taz1964 says ...



Damn, you beat me to it.lol



Yeah, International law is an area of interest to me especially since I think its crap.


International law cannot be that crap, broadley speaking. International law has bonded many countries military interests and support.




No, it is meaningless when you are the only idiot followng the rules



Only one following the rules? Then it can`t be international then. I am sorry, but I don`t understand the comment. Who`s the only idiot? and  only one following which rules?  



The United States is the only country following the rules.  We have to let opportunities pass us by to avoid hurting civillians.  The terrorists count on this and use our compliance with this rule to hurt us.

Soccertaz_max50

177 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Terrorism is not new, it is as old as war itself.


Do you really think we are playing by the "rules"? no we are not, and rightly so. On the face of it, our militaries stick to the "rules" set out, but it goes much deeper than that. 


Utrinque Paratus

Soccertaz_max50

177 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

The United States is the only country following the rules.  We have to let opportunities pass us by to avoid hurting civillians.  The terrorists count on this and use our compliance with this rule to hurt us.


Is that an educated statement? or one of total lack of information?


Utrinque Paratus

Photo_user_banned_big

268 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

taz1964 says ...



Terrorism is not new, it is as old as war itself.


Do you really think we are playing by the "rules"? no we are not, and rightly so. On the face of it, our militaries stick to the "rules" set out, but it goes much deeper than that. 



I think our military should be given maximum latitude to conduct the war and not worry so much about pr.

Soccertaz_max50

177 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

There are "rules of engagement" and then there are "rules of engagement"


Your comment that the US is the only country following the rules is plainly innacurate. Please remember that this is a "Global" war on terror, and that many other countries are in this fight too. Many good, brave, and selfless men/women laying their lives on the line daily.


Utrinque Paratus

Photo_user_banned_big

268 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

taz1964 says ...



There are "rules of engagement" and then there are "rules of engagement"


Your comment that the US is the only country following the rules is plainly innacurate. Please remember that this is a "Global" war on terror, and that many other countries are in this fight too. Many good, brave, and selfless men/women laying their lives on the line daily.



I know, and I want them to do whatever it takes to win and come home and not worry about offending some cleric or imam.

Don_27t_20tred_20on_20me_max50

1252 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Okay let me make this clear before people throw in their 2 cents and have absolutely no clue what the heck they are talking about...


*Any persons currently apprehended overseas are classified as DETAINED persons. Not prisoners, not captives, DETAINEES. We (the United States) are not at war with any country; therefore, we have no prisoners.


Detainees do not get rights granted by the Geneva/Hague Conventions, hence their classification as a detainee.


 


Now, about the shooting scenario...since we're not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, the Use of Force Continuum applies to all US forces and armed contractors. What does that mean? ANY persons displaying the threat of life, limb or eye-sight to another person can be neutralized with as much force necessary to diffuse the situation.


 


Also, as for the "if they don't play by the rules then why do we?" statements- are you kidding me? If you have a gold badge and just said that you should slap yourself. Do you say that about criminals? Immoral is Immoral.


¡GØÐ HņH ÑØ ƒÜR¥ †HÂÑ À Pϧ§ËР؃ƒ PÁRņRØØPËR!

Ríø†!™

Photo_user_banned_big

268 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Riot says ...



Okay let me make this clear before people throw in their 2 cents and have absolutely no clue what the heck they are talking about...


*Any persons currently apprehended overseas are classified as DETAINED persons. Not prisoners, not captives, DETAINES. We (the United States) are not at war with any country; therefore, we have no prisoners.


Detainees do not get rights granted by the Geneva/Hague Conventions, hence their classification as a detaine.


 


Now, about the shooting scenario...since we're not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, the Use of Force Continuum applies to all US forces and armed contractors. What does that mean? ANY persons displaying the threat of life, limb or eye-sight to another person can be neutralized with as much force necessary to diffuse the situation.


 



Thanks for the info, and I am sure you will agree that giving our servicemembers every advantage needed to win is more important that following some arbitrary rules that are intended to keep us from offending a bunch of clerics.

Soccertaz_max50

177 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 6 years ago

 

Riot says ...



Okay let me make this clear before people throw in their 2 cents and have absolutely no clue what the heck they are talking about...


*Any persons currently apprehended overseas are classified as DETAINED persons. Not prisoners, not captives, DETAINES. We (the United States) are not at war with any country; therefore, we have no prisoners.


Detainees do not get rights granted by the Geneva/Hague Conventions, hence their classification as a detaine.


 


Now, about the shooting scenario...since we're not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, the Use of Force Continuum applies to all US forces and armed contractors. What does that mean? ANY persons displaying the threat of life, limb or eye-sight to another person can be neutralized with as much force necessary to diffuse the situation.


 


Also, as for the "if they don't play by the rules then why do we?" statements- are you kidding me? If you have a gold badge and just said that you should slap yourself. Do you say that about criminals? Immoral is Immoral.



One can only be regarded "a spy" if caught behind enemy lines, and out of uniform. Of  those detainees captured and imprisoned at Gitmo, none were in the uniform of a genuine military force, so they should not be covered by the Geneva Convention, anyway


As I previously stated


Utrinque Paratus

Next Page >