[QUOTE=BigLutz;15201581]Yet there is also a breaking point with people in which they will tell you correct information just to make it stop. Furthermore if you are correct and these people live in fear their whole lives. Then what is stopping their torturers from coming back and exacting retribution for false information? You would think it would be prudent on their part to tell them correct information the first time and not fear the retaliation that will come when the information is found out to be false. Again I point back to the interrogation techniques at Gitmo as proof.[/qupte]
In KSM's case, they already knew he was guilty. They weren't forcing a confession.
No I wasn't? I was talking about anyone who lives in the middle east or works for the army realizing that any random accusation is enough to allow this to happen to them.You were speaking of U.S. Military officers, which specifically.
The only thing that happened was that 8-days after the protests started, he stopped supporting Mubarak as actively and as publicly as he normally did.Your article shows one member of the security force shooting a protester, now do you have any proof that Murbarak ordered the attack? That he told them to open fire? Is it not also just as likely of some one being spooked firing on the protesters? Also your timeline is a bit skewed, the protests started on the 25th, within 8 days Obama was suggesting that he should step down. Furthermore you have no proof of any behind the scenes pressure put on by the White House for him to step down.
Those cables are dated from 2009, as such I cannot see how they can be used in any way to indicate support for a protest happening two years later, especially on the weapons point.
Mubarak has been all about torture and murdering political enemies and anyone who dares to insult him from the very first day he became president, and he's had tons of support for it.
They were supporting him in 2009 when those papers were published, when he was killing his enemies then, and there's no reason to believe that they ever stopped supporting him until the protesters forced Obama to condemn him in a purely political and symbolic way.
They obviously believed that he, and the embassy, were still a threat. Whether or not you think they were 30 years later is not the point. Hamoodi turned out not to be a threat, but that's really not the point. Your argument is that what they did was justified because they legitimately believed that he was at that time, and that they did what they had to do to stop said threat.Seeing how the Shah was on the verge of falling by the time the coup happened, there is no reason to assume they remain a threat. And if they believed the staff would help in a further coup, then they should shut down the embassy and release them to the U.S. as they cannot help with another coup if they are no longer in the country. Again so far you show no indication of a immediate threat as what happened in Iraq. Argument Failed.
Co-ordination for an attack, and the emergence of another coup, was still a threat, and a pretty big possibility. Heck, the fact that Carter DIDN'T respond with an attack was a huge controversy at that time, it's still seen as the reason that he failed as a president. Plus, the same dictator was still being harbored. What if Bin-Laden was being harbored in canada? You don't think he would be considered dangerous? Sure he's just a useless old man without the influence, but he'd still be the criminal, and he'd still be dangerous.
When the Anglo persian oil company looked like they were losing power in '53, they just had the president killed. There is a reason they were paranoid. Excessively so? Of course. In violation of international law? Extremely. But the whole point is that they legitimately believed that they were in danger because of the Shahs continued power, and the continued influence, and they believed that they could stop it by taking hostages..
So I ask you again, do you still think that their taking whatever action they could to stop that threat is legitimate?
Right, they had no proof that they were spies, but neither did West on Hamoodi.No as there is no proof they were spies, unlike what happened here, and there is no proof that any country they support was planning a invasion. Having a spies in your country does not immediately mean a invasion is happening, if so the USSR should have invaded the U.S. and vice versa during the Cold War.
WHETHER OR NOT AN INVASION HAPPENED IS IRRELEVANT.
One is definitely being planned or otherwise prepared for, and the whole point of that argument is that they had a good reason to THINK they were in immediate danger, which they clearly did. You've argued that believing that you're in immediate danger is a good enough reason to torture someone into confessing.
Your entire argument is that because they "could" have been in danger, and that they thought they were, it's a good enough reason for them to torture someone into confessing.And seeing how your arguments have largely failed, and you have fallen back on the tactic of "What ifs"....
That's fine, but you also glossed over what said interrogation involved and insisted that it was no big deal. I'm trying to show you what that interrogation actually means by asking you to look at it from the interrogees point of view, but you've done nothing but dodge questions.