Crushing testicles? Sometimes terrorists do use children unfortunately

[Proud2BAmurkin]

Alito thinks when it's a choice between crushing a child's testicles and not getting important terrorist information that child might have, then unfortunately the testicles must be crushed.

What's so wrong with that?

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. Is this a real question?

Or should I get my popcorn bag?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

3. Bush loving idiots think it is nt

nt

[Der Blaue Engel]

16. Ah. I've been hiding from the whole Alito thing

I've reached overload on being psychologically and emotionally assaulted by this admin.

[sui generis]

2. gosh, the premise is that children know EVERYTHING

about the terrorist organization and its plans.

Oh wait . . . maybe they're crushing the testicles of the terrorists KIDS in front of them. You know, torture someone else so the perp will break.

After all, important information must be had even if we're not sure they have information or if it's important . . . . :sarcasm:

these people are so fucking stupid.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arcane1]

8. here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=87047

[MrMonk]

22. The thread is gone.

[arcane1]

5. I thought he meant something else:

that if we had a terrorist in custody, who has "valuable" information, we should be allowed to crush HIS child's testicles in order to get him to talk

gods, can you BELIEVE we are having this conversation in America in 2-thousand-fucking-SIX???? :puke:

[Lerkfish]

6. um...dunno...maybe TORTURE IS WRONG?

and maybe torturing children is even MORE WRONG?

tell ya what I think. If it seems ok to crush the testicles of a child, maybe the terrorists have an ethical point in considering us the great satan.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. couldn't say it any better- !!

if this is 'who we are' then 'we' should go down.

Hard, and soon.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

11. We're at war

we're at war we're at war we're at war

[Lerkfish]

12. at war with a concept? Sorry, even if we are at war with a real country,

torture is never justified.

Was Dr. Mengele okeydokey because Germany was at war with the Allies?

[Bob3]

18. NO WE ARE NOT AT WAR

We are dealing with a) an insurrection in what is for all intents and purposes a colony of the United States and b) various non-state underground groups weakly linked together by an ideology or just plain raw hatred who attack the civilian population of their opponents. That's a problem for law enforcement agencies, intelligence services and inter government cooperation with the military used on occasion to provide muscle. It's not a war, its not even a cold war. It's more like the attempt to eliminate pirates in the 17th century (the terrorists of their day)

We're not at war - our troops are dying yes, but this country is if anything more removed from the fighting than Victorian England was during the Zulu war.

[flyingfysh]

7. If you justify torture in one extreme hypothetical case

Then you are justifying using it on a mass scale. This happened at Abu Ghraib. We abused thousands of people, most of whom knew nothing. And the rest just wanted the foreigners out of their country.

Do you really want to be part of a society that uses torture?

[gratuitous]

17. And once you define that extreme hypothetical case

The case suddenly becomes a LOT more common than you would have thought -- at least, when we were still in the hypothetical stage. Suddenly, all sorts of folks might fit the extreme hypothetical template. Well, some of them might not "fit" per se, but with a little maneuvering, a little trimming here, a little filling there, and voila! We have another extreme hypothetical case! Torture away.

Then there are those pesky cases that just don't fit the extreme hypothetical case, no matter how much fudging the authorities do. But . . . how do you know for certain that this case isn't one of the extreme hypotheticals? Maybe this captive is just very very good at hiding the fact that he's an extreme hypothetical case. You know, we just can't take the chance that this isn't an extreme hypothetical case and that we're too dense to see it. Better get out the thumbscrews anyway, just to be "safe."

Mind boggling that this is a topic for serious discussion in our once-great nation. Thank you very much, Mr. Bush.

[mike_c]

10. because once you've lost your humanity, you lose any claim to...

...humane treatment from others. Unfortunately, the U.S. has already crossed that line and done so quite publicly, e.g. Abu Ghraib and the CIA secret gulag network, so now America's enemies are entirely justified in treating Americans like rabid animals, IMO.

[Bob3]

13. because it's an insane straw man argument for one thing

The standard argument for nut crushing is a) we know the bad guys have planted a bomb b) we only have x amount of time (hours usually and c) we are in custody of someone who knows were the bomb is planted. So in order to get the information we need, nuts need to be crushed.

there are several problems with this
1) Outside of the show 24 this would never happen. In the real world if we knew a bomb had been planted and when it was due to go off, it is extremely unlikely that we would have no idea at all where the bomb is.
2) It takes a while to break people - movies notwithstanding - US Pilots at the Hanoi Hilton held out for weeks if not months. Even the Gestapo and the NKVD found it took a while. So there are better things to do while the clock is ticking than crushing nuts.
3) Information gained under torture is extremely unreliable - the Germans and the Soviets used it simply to get confessions - regardless of whether or not the person being tortured had actually committed a crime. Hell the records of the Spanish Inquisition and the Witch trials feature confessions of women flying naked on brooms to a witches sabbath.
4) Addressing the child issue there are so many easier ways to get something out of a child - and shit what sane terrorist is going to give real information to a child? I mean lets work the real world again gigs.

[NNN0LHI]

14. Who's testicles would Jesus crush? n/t

[Divernan]

15. I heard Alito testify that strip searching children (10 yr. olds) was OK

Asked to explain an opinion in which he approved strip searching a 10 year old child who was found on the premises of a suspected drug dealer, in light of the fact that such an action could traumatize an innocent child for life, he was very blase, pointing out that by strip-searching kids, we kept drug dealers from using kids to carry drugs. Anyone in the real world realizes that drug dealers are too corrupted and criminal to care what happens to their mules, as long as enough of them escape detection to maintain a "healthy" profit margin. In that sense, they think like Cheney re casualties in Iraq. As long as Halliburton's profits stay up, up, up , US soldiers are just so much cannon fodder. Returning to Alito's rationale,children everywhere benefit from being strip-searched. Even though he has a daughter of his own,who was once an innocent 10 yer. old, the man clearly could not relate to other children. I don't know whether the alleged quotes from him re crushing testicles are true or spin or sarcastic humor. But the reasoning is analagous to his strip search kids philosophy. As long as they're not white Republican kids.

[txindy]

19. It was John Yoo who supported the crushing "if necessary"

The pResidential advisor on torture. Charming guy. :eyes:

Adding: Link to reference (although there are many more than this one)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=78679

[Jemmons]

20. Did anything ever happen after the revalations of Ian Fishback?

" Capt. Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate, contacted the Senate panel with the charges within the last 10 days, saying he was frustrated that his superior officers had failed to respond, said committee aides. Fishback and the two sergeants, whose names have not been disclosed, also made allegations of abuse to Human Rights Watch. The captain is the first officer to go public with allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq since the Abu Ghraib prison scandal erupted in April 2004.

In recent letters to several members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Fishback said he witnessed detainees being stripped, deprived of sleep, exposed to the elements and "forced into uncomfortable positions for prolonged periods of time for the express purpose of coercing them into revealing information other than name, rank and service number." "

http://www.president-bush.com/murderous-maniacs.html

[txindy]

21. Good question. I don't know. Put that in a new thread of its own.

You should get some informed answers.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Jemmons]

25. Thank you.

I think i need to do a bit of spamming before I'm allowed to make new threads. :popcorn:

[MrMonk]

23. I think that was John Yoo.

[oblivious]

24. I guarantee it wouldn't work with me.

I'd just tell them whatever they wanted to hear.

You know some terrorists, don't you.

YES!!

They're going to attack us, aren't they.

YES! YES!

How are they going to do that?

CAR BOMBS! ROADSIDE BOMBS! SUICIDE BOMBS!

Where?

BAGHDAD! RAMADI! FALLUJA!

How many bombs do they have?

LOTS!

See men, torture works. Now we know what the terrorists are planning.