Is it OK to torture terrorists??

Donald Trump says torture 'absolutely' works: 'we have to fight fire with fire'
Trump gives first presidential TV interview as draft executive order points to return to practices such as waterboarding

Donald Trump in his first one-on-one television interview since being sworn in as president.

Matthew Weaver and Spencer Ackerman
Thursday 26 January 2017 03.01 EST First published on Thursday 26 January 2017 02.40 EST

View more sharing options
Donald Trump has used his first TV interview as president to say he believes torture “absolutely” works and that the US should “fight fire with fire.”

Speaking to ABC News, Trump said he would defer to the defence secretary, James Mattis, and CIA director, Mike Pompeo, to determine what can and cannot be done legally to combat the spread of terrorism.

But asked about the efficacy of tactics such as waterboarding, Trump said: “absolutely I feel it works.”


“When Isis is doing things that nobody has ever heard of since medieval times. Would I feel strongly about waterboarding. As far as I’m concerned we have to fight fire with fire.”

Trump said he asked intelligence chiefs earlier this week whether torture works. “The answer was yes, absolutely,” he said.

He added that terrorist groups “chop off the citizens’ or anybody’s heads in the Middle East, because they’re Christian or Muslim or anything else ... we have that and we’re not allowed to do anything. We’re not playing on an even field.”

Will Trump return USA to dark days of 'war on terror' black sites?
The interviews come after reports that Trump is preparing to sign an executive order that would reinstate the detention of terrorism suspects at facilities known as “black sites”.

This would remove limitations on coercive interrogation techniques set by a longstanding army field manual intended to ensure humane military interrogations, which is mostly compliant with the Geneva Conventions. Mattis and Pompeo were “blindsided” by reports of the draft order, Politico said citing sources.


Trump faces resistance to the prospect of the reintroduction of torture.

Senator John McCain, a torture survivor and co-author of a 2015 law barring the US security agencies from using interrogation techniques beyond those set out in the US army field manual, signalled his defiance.

“The president can sign whatever executive orders he likes. But the law is the law. We are not bringing back torture in the United States of America,” said McCain, the Arizona Republican who chairs the Senate armed services committee.

McCain referenced explicit guarantees from Pompeo and Mattis during their Senate confirmation proceedings to follow the interrogations law and the army field manual. “I am confident these leaders will be true to their word,” McCain said.

The former CIA head Leon Panetta, who gave the orders to close the agency’s black sites told the BBC that it would be a “mistake” to reintroduce enhance interrogation techniques and “damaging” to the reputation of the US. Panetta said torture was violation of the US values and the constitution.


Steve Kleinman, a retired air force colonel and chairman of the research advisory committee to the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, warned that weakening US prohibitions against torture carried significant consequences for national security.

“If the US was to make it once again the policy of the country to coerce, and to detain at length in an extrajudicial fashion, the costs would be beyond substantial – they’d be potentially existential,” he said.

Mark Fallon, who was the deputy chief of Guantánamo’s Bush-era investigative taskforce for military tribunals, said: “It does appear like a subterfuge to enact more brutal methods because that was what candidate Trump campaigned on during the election.”

Fallon warned that the field manual’s appendix M, which allows extended “separation” of a detainee from other captives, represented a “slippery slope that could bring back torture”.


Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May, has been urged to by her own MPs to make Britain’s opposition to torture clear to Trump when she visits him on Friday.

At prime minister’s questions Andrew Tyrie, a senior Tory MP, said: “President Trump has repeatedly said he will bring back torture as an instrument of policy. When she sees him on Friday, will the prime minister make it clear that in no circumstances will she permit Britain to be dragged into facilitating that torture, as we were after 11 September?”

It depends if that ends up getting extended to "suspected terrorists" which I assume it would. In that case it is a resounding no.

It depends if that ends up getting extended to "suspected terrorists" which I assume it would. In that case it is a resounding no.

Absolutely mate.

It's similar to the death penalty. Get it wrong and you cannot go back.

If used torture has to be on individuals who have indisputable evidence against theIran crime AND if there is a clear time critical threat that can be stopped with information.

If they are 100% terrorist then yes but it's a grey area

Yes! behead them all ! Islam is the cancer of this world!!

Yes! behead them all ! Islam is the cancer of this world!!

Don't apply for a job as torturer any time soon. Not sure you'll get much Intel with your technique.

Yes

It depends if that ends up getting extended to "suspected terrorists" which I assume it would. In that case it is a resounding no.

Absolutely mate.

It's similar to the death penalty. Get it wrong and you cannot go back.

If used torture has to be on individuals who have indisputable evidence against theIran crime AND if there is a clear time critical threat that can be stopped with information.

Agreed even though I'm normally against lowering our society standards to that of others but the threat posed by IS is very real.

The trouble with Trump is that he's likely to say anyone with darker skin than him or of a different religion to him deserves to be tortured. They may well get information from them but it could be made up. If I had electrodes attached to my bollocks I'd admit to anything to stop them pressing that button !!

However, it they had managed to capture one of the Paris gunmen or 9/11 pilots in the act then do what you have to to get the information to avoid another imminent atrocity.

If one of my loved ones lives could be saved by applying some additional discomfort to a suspected terrorsit I have no real issues against its use

Where do I sign up?

Yes, then send them back were they came from

I've no ethical qualms about torturing ISIS but listening to a retired British Intelligence guy a while ago and he opined the trouble is when people are being tortured they will say or admit anything so it's not really useful for obtaining reliable information.

If one of my loved ones lives could be saved by applying some additional discomfort to a suspected terrorsit I have no real issues against its use

How about if that same loved one was suspected of being a terrorist? Still up for it?

Absolutely no way is this right, even for war criminals like Bush and Blair who were responsible for thousands of deaths of innocent civilians in illegal wars like Iraq. They should be tried in an international court as the Nazis were.

If one of my loved ones lives could be saved by applying some additional discomfort to a suspected terrorsit I have no real issues against its use

How about if that same loved one was suspected of being a terrorist? Still up for it?

I would do it myself

If one of my loved ones lives could be saved by applying some additional discomfort to a suspected terrorsit I have no real issues against its use

How about if that same loved one was suspected of being a terrorist? Still up for it?

I would do it myself

.......

If one of my loved ones lives could be saved by applying some additional discomfort to a suspected terrorsit I have no real issues against its use

How about if that same loved one was suspected of being a terrorist? Still up for it?

I would do it myself

Even if you knew they were not? That is crazy.

That will be the situation for a lot of these people held in captivity by the US. After 9/11 there was 7 people on the US hitlist of terrorists, a few years later that grew to 3000. You didn't even have to be a terrorist, they just had to assume or guess you were.

If one of my loved ones lives could be saved by applying some additional discomfort to a suspected terrorsit I have no real issues against its use

How about if that same loved one was suspected of being a terrorist? Still up for it?

I would do it myself

Even if you knew they were not? That is crazy.

That will be the situation for a lot of these people held in captivity by the US. After 9/11 there was 7 people on the US hitlist of terrorists, a few years later that grew to 3000. You didn't even have to be a terrorist, they just had to assume or guess you were.

ah right, the FBI,CIA,HOMELAND SECURITY ETC were assuming or guessing. because you say?
i take it your working in intel these days ? Mycroft roath

If one of my loved ones lives could be saved by applying some additional discomfort to a suspected terrorsit I have no real issues against its use

How about if that same loved one was suspected of being a terrorist? Still up for it?

I would do it myself

Even if you knew they were not? That is crazy.

That will be the situation for a lot of these people held in captivity by the US. After 9/11 there was 7 people on the US hitlist of terrorists, a few years later that grew to 3000. You didn't even have to be a terrorist, they just had to assume or guess you were.

ah right, the FBI,CIA,HOMELAND SECURITY ETC were assuming or guessing. because you say?
i take it your working in intel these days ? Mycroft roath

Well many of the people held in Guantanamo had no charges against them, and were held for years.

Personally I'm against it, as not everybody held captive are actually terrorists, some are innocent. No innocent person deserves to be treated in that way.

They intelligence agencies already have affective ways of getting information, without the use of torture.

If one of my loved ones lives could be saved by applying some additional discomfort to a suspected terrorsit I have no real issues against its use

How about if that same loved one was suspected of being a terrorist? Still up for it?

I would do it myself

Even if you knew they were not? That is crazy.

That will be the situation for a lot of these people held in captivity by the US. After 9/11 there was 7 people on the US hitlist of terrorists, a few years later that grew to 3000. You didn't even have to be a terrorist, they just had to assume or guess you were.

ah right, the FBI,CIA,HOMELAND SECURITY ETC were assuming or guessing. because you say?
i take it your working in intel these days ? Mycroft roath

Absolutely. Same as how schools, hospitals and civilian reguge centers get targeted incorrectly for drone strikes. Do you think that's ok too?

Many people in Guantanamo have absolutely no charges against them what so ever. None.

And for your information as we all know you have an obsession with anything roathy (or anyone you suspect being him) says. It is not because I say so, it is because fact says so. Under the Bush administration 500 were released from Guantanamo bay, many of which had been tortured.

And for your information as we all know you have an obsession with anything roathy (or anyone you suspect being him) says. It is not because I say so, it is because fact says so. Under the Bush administration 500 were released from Guantanamo bay, many of which had been tortured.

Guantanamo Roath

And for your information as we all know you have an obsession with anything roathy (or anyone you suspect being him) says. It is not because I say so, it is because fact says so. Under the Bush administration 500 were released from Guantanamo bay, many of which had been tortured.

Guantanamo Roath

If a nickname helps ease the fact that I have added obvious sense to this nonsense then Guantanamo Roath I shall proudly become

And for your information as we all know you have an obsession with anything roathy (or anyone you suspect being him) says. It is not because I say so, it is because fact says so. Under the Bush administration 500 were released from Guantanamo bay, many of which had been tortured.

when we were knee deep in rebrand and you were in the middle with a big spoon. i sorta got it.a jack taking the pee. now your just the board jester mate.

I do believe it never stopped. Obama May of flapped his gums but in reality it still went on I believe. But Trump is up front and a honest guy. Fair play to him.

I do believe it never stopped. Obama May of flapped his gums but in reality it still went on I believe. But Trump is up front and a honest guy. Fair play to him.

Up front maybe. Honest... Well see...

Firstly it doesn't work.

Secondly it can result is people confessing or giving information which is inaccurate just to stop the torture.. and sending security services down rabbit holes wasting time and money

There have been no reported cases where torturing people has resulted in information to stop an attack.

Case closed.

Its wrong and ineffective.

Yes! behead them all ! Islam is the cancer of this world!!

Don't apply for a job as torturer any time soon. Not sure you'll get much Intel with your technique.

"Severed head gives vital info to stop attack"

I think we've been tortured enough with the rebrand and managers who play anti-football and we are not even terrorists.

Firstly it doesn't work.

Secondly it can result is people confessing or giving information which is inaccurate just to stop the torture.. and sending security services down rabbit holes wasting time and money

There have been no reported cases where torturing people has resulted in information to stop an attack.

Case closed.

Its wrong and ineffective.

I would mostly agree with what you have said in relation to some extreme physical torture...........I do not advocate that at all, particularly so long after an event.

Unsure how you can be so confident about the highlighted comment though - rather a broad statement.

However, "battlefield questioning", immediately after capture can be effective to locate and eliminate a threat.

People who think that no pressure is put on terrorists to provide info are living in la la land. It always has been used and always will be. Remember such pressures are used not just against terrorists but any combatants.

In a perfect world there would be no terrorists and no need to use such methods but sadly we do not live in a perfect world.

Sometimes the end does justify the mean to protect the innocent