Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix]

I bet you would admit to terrorist acts after being tortured for a while. In fact, I bet you would admit to anything almost immediately.

Torturing information out of someone doesn't show that they are terrorists. It only shows that they are desperate for the suffering to end. Do you also say "Fuck'em" to all the innocent people who confessed under the pressure of torture?

Indeed. There is a reason why these sorts of things are illegal on civilians in the US. Otherwise the police would be able to torture confessions out of people all the time.

 

[bob_arctor]

You seem to be missing the simple point that no one life is worth more than another.

Well, my kids are sure worth a helluva lot more than mine.

 

[Saint Cornelius]

Bob Arctor: Interesting!

Eminem: So if Bush continues to condone torture, there will be a lot less beheaded and mutilated American corpses?! Holy shit, I never even thought of that!

 

[pestul]

Well, my kids are sure worth a helluva lot more than mine.

And if your kids were killed in Iraq, you'd support the torture of potential leads as a tactic?

I wouldn't, even for those closest to me.

 

[gofreak]

Torture is not reliable. Anyway, I cannot even believe we're debating the legitimacy of this. Really can't. Where are we going with all this? Where are we going to be in 5 or 10 years? How much further are we going to plunge?

Bush = Evil. If we were attributing quotes like these to Saddam or other despots, we'd be jumping all over them as shameless and exceptionally arrogant admissions of abuse and lack of respect for international law (and basic decency). Why would Bush reserve the right to waive the Geneva convention? Why? In light of the abuses at Abu Ghraib etc. I cannot but think of the worst.

 

[deadhorse32]

One name came to my mind John Titor. I used to think it was pretty funny but it's starting to get a little creepy.

I just read all about john titor, it's pretty scary in the light of some event ( Patriot act, less freedom more security,... )

I'm still skeptic but if some of those events occur Holy SHIT

 

[bionic77]

You know what I find more shocking than this, is that here at GAF people get more upset about Bush claiming "Right to Waive Torture Laws" than Americans being burned, mutilated and hung like slaughtered sheep.

oh, that's part of the war, it happens. BUT BUSH CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO WAIVE TORTURE LAWS??? HUMANITY IS DOOMED.

or wait, I'll quote an actual response: "There really is no hope for humanity."


Jesus. If torture can somehow stop THAT^ (and I'm not saying it can/will), then go for it. But I guess a lot of you would rather see more beheaded and mutilated American corpses, so long as Bush doesn't torture anyone.

Torture will in no way stop that. I was also in the thread when they killed the South Korean and I thought that was disgusting as well, but the difference is this is MY COUNTRY, and I hold this country to a slightly higher standard in how it is supposed to act then a ragtag bunch of terrorists. Really, there is no reason to torture them, I have no problems with giving them a trial and then executing them if that is the sentence they deserve but torturing them debases us more then them.

And as for that rationale someone posted on why we should suspend the Geneva convention, that might fly with members of Al Queda, but the Geneva conventions should still extend to Iraqi and Taliban prisoners of war as they were fighting for a nation. And if choose not to follow it then it opens the door for other countries to legally torture our civilians and soldiers too. Not that the terrorists probably care about that, but we are supposed to be a civilized nation.

 

[Kettch]

You know what I find more shocking than this, is that here at GAF people get more upset about Bush claiming "Right to Waive Torture Laws" than Americans being burned, mutilated and hung like slaughtered sheep.

I take it you missed the thread at gamesquad about the mutilations, where the forum was sickened, outraged, and posting pictures of nukes going off in Iraq? This thread is quite mild in comparison.

Jesus. If torture can somehow stop THAT^ (and I'm not saying it can/will), then go for it. But I guess a lot of you would rather see more beheaded and mutilated American corpses, so long as Bush doesn't torture anyone.

*confused* You state that torture is in no way guarenteed to stop "THAT", yet anyone against torture would like to see "THAT" happening? I'd love to see how you came to this conclusion.

 

[iapetus]

But I guess a lot of you would rather see more beheaded and mutilated American corpses, so long as Bush doesn't torture anyone.

Hey, maybe some of us are sufficiently WILD AND CRAZY that we think it's a bad idea to burn Americans, behead Koreans OR torture Iraqis, and want to see those people responsible for ALL of these things stopped, caught and punished (in roughly that order).

 

[sc0la]

Hey, maybe some of us are sufficiently WILD AND CRAZY that we think it's a bad idea to burn Americans, behead Koreans OR torture Iraqis, and want to see those people responsible for ALL of these things stopped, caught and punished (in roughly that order).

woah woah slow down cowboy. That position is neither black or white. Fall in line!

 

[Chesapeake Silt]

I don't have much of a problem with the Geneva Convention being waived with respect to AQ. They're not soldiers of any state, so it's pretty reasonable to say that they don't get GC protection. But I do have a problem with the President's apparent belief that he has the authority to cancel the Geneva Convention between America and other states.

The memo says that the president can take a look at the country we're about to go to war with, decide that they're a 'failed state' and therefore blink the Geneva Convention out of existence (part III of the January memo). Uh... bad precedent, anybody? When is America ever going to fight a war where we can't look at our opponent and say 'you're an evil, corrupt, failed state - no Geneva Convention for you.' It sort of defeats the purpose of having a Geneva Convention - you know, if you have the authority to disregard it whenever you happen to dislike the opponent you're waging war against. Sure, GWB didn't take advantage of this power on this occasion (how merciful of him!) but the fact that he believes he has the authority to do so is a bad thing. Looks like they've succeeded in reducing the Geneva Convention to a 'quaint' irrelevancy, by way of torturing the constitution. Er... placing the constitution in a 'stress position', while stripping it naked, and letting the dogs at it (perfectly legal that way).

Part four of the president's memo puts a fine point on the problem. How can he demand that captured American personnel be treated consistently with the law if America believes that we can negate that law at any point?

 

[bob_arctor]

And if your kids were killed in Iraq, you'd support the torture of potential leads as a tactic?

I wouldn't, even for those closest to me.

I really, really wish I could be as inherently good as that, pestul. But I'd probably be 1st in line to bash some heads, sadly. Only immediate family makes me this irrational though. Well, my kids really. Those lil fuckers'll bring out the worst in ya!

 

[Kuramu]

Why exactly do you think that we shouldn't honor the Geneva convention?

This should be good.

according to Article 4 of the third Convention, a POW is defined in part as " having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance . . . of carrying arms openly . . . of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."


Clearly, Al-Queda and other terrorists do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. A suicide bomber does not openly carry arms. A hijacker of a plane does not wear a uniform identifying him as such. Furthermore, the Geneva Conventions, like most treaties, structure legal relationships between Nation States, not between Nation States and private interest groups and non-state actors, such as Al-Queda.

however, from article 5

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

so by saying that they aren't covered by the Geneva convention, yet stating that they will still abide by it's rules, they are doing the right thing. reserving the right to waive the GC is acceptable, provided a competent tribunal rules on their status

 

[gofreak]

however, from article 5



so by saying that they aren't covered by the Geneva convention, yet stating that they will still abide by it's rules, they are doing the right thing. reserving the right to waive the GC is acceptable, provided a competent tribunal rules on their status

Oh, ok. So we should just take they're word for it, then? That they'll abide by the rules? We have conventions and law for a reason - to commit people to abiding by the rules. They waived the geneva convention to cover their asses legally, so that it could be bent/broken (if they wished to do so). That's the most obvious, and probably the correct, conclusion.

 

[Phoenix]

Hey, maybe some of us are sufficiently WILD AND CRAZY that we think it's a bad idea to burn Americans, behead Koreans OR torture Iraqis, and want to see those people responsible for ALL of these things stopped, caught and punished (in roughly that order).

Put me in the WILD and CRAZY category too....

 

[Kuramu]

Oh, ok. So we should just take they're word for it, then? That they'll abide by the rules? We have conventions and law for a reason - to commit people to abiding by the rules. They waived the geneva convention to cover their asses legally, so that it could be bent/broken (if they wished to do so). That's the most obvious, and probably the correct, conclusion.

read that article 5 bit again, they still need to treat prisoners in accordance with the GC until a tribunal rules on their status.

edit: and the administration vowed to do so. if you don't want to take their word for it, that's up to you

 

[demon]

You know what I find more shocking than this, is that here at GAF people get more upset about Bush claiming "Right to Waive Torture Laws" than Americans being burned, mutilated and hung like slaughtered sheep.

oh, that's part of the war, it happens. BUT BUSH CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO WAIVE TORTURE LAWS??? HUMANITY IS DOOMED.

or wait, I'll quote an actual response: "There really is no hope for humanity."


Jesus. If torture can somehow stop THAT^ (and I'm not saying it can/will), then go for it. But I guess a lot of you would rather see more beheaded and mutilated American corpses, so long as Bush doesn't torture anyone.

1. People are not more upset about it; they're more shocked by it. Maybe to some, an American president condoning torture is more surprising than a bunch of Iraqi terrorist nuts burning bodies. Although, considering the Bush administration's record, maybe it shouldn't be seen as more surprising.

2. How the hell is the torturing of random Iraqi soldiers going to prevent "^THAT"? Especially when America proclaims to be a bastion of morality, if anything it will incite MORE of that kind of shit.

3. THIS JUST IN: GEORGE W. BUSH CONDONES TORTURE. That is all.


"I'm John Kerry and I approve of this message"
A Vote For Bush Is A Vote For Torture
Kerry 2004

 

[Banjo Tango]

read that article 5 bit again, they still need to treat prisoners in accordance with the GC until a tribunal rules on their status.

I thought the whole uproar was that they already weren't treating prisoners in accordance with the GC, and they weren't giving them access to a tribunal to determine their status (at least in Guanatanamo, if not Iraq).

Also, did congress ever get their hands on those Ashcroft documents? The ones where he was all, "Fuck off, they're private."?

 

[Kuramu]

1. People are not more upset about it; they're more shocked by it. Maybe to some, an American president condoning torture is more surprising than a bunch of Iraqi terrorist nuts burning bodies. Although, considering the Bush administration's record, maybe it shouldn't be seen as more surprising.

2. How the hell is the torturing of random Iraqi soldiers going to prevent "^THAT"? Especially when America proclaims to be a bastion of morality, if anything it will incite MORE of that kind of shit.

3. THIS JUST IN: GEORGE W. BUSH CONDONES TORTURE. That is all.


"I'm John Kerry and I approve of this message"
A Vote For Bush Is A Vote For Torture
Kerry 2004

Speaking earlier Tuesday in the Oval Office, Bush told reporters: "We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."

what he did do was agree with the legal stance that the GC does not apply to terrorists, yet said he would treat them as if it did

 

[Ferrio]

This thread makes me sick thinking of all you fuckers trying to reason the torture.

The horrible irony of it all makes it surreal.

 

[Vennt]

Hey, maybe some of us are sufficiently WILD AND CRAZY that we think it's a bad idea to burn Americans, behead Koreans OR torture Iraqis, and want to see those people responsible for ALL of these things stopped, caught and punished (in roughly that order).

It had to be said, and damn iapetus your skill for succinctly, and cynically arguing sense is unequaled at GA.


Freeburn.

 

[Saint Cornelius]

This John Titor stuff is scaring the shit outta me.

 

[darscot]

If you haven't read on John Titor before today is probable not the best day it's creepy enough already.

 

[FightyF]

I agree that we should be appalled when Americans are caught, burnt alive and their deaths celebrated. But we should be seeking justic, not revenge.

If we could catch those people, and throw them in prison, wouldn't justice be served? American justice? After all, we don't torture American prisoners in the American prison system. Why should we allow it on others just because they are of a different ethnicity?

so by saying that they aren't covered by the Geneva convention, yet stating that they will still abide by it's rules, they are doing the right thing. reserving the right to waive the GC is acceptable, provided a competent tribunal rules on their status

First off, the GC has been ignored in Gitmo Bay. The US govt have refused a tribunal to rule on the status of these people. Effectively breaking the law.

Once the US breaks the law, because they feel they are above the Law, the rest of the World will be less and less likely to abide by it.

 

[effzee]

Wow.



Besides.... the musilms of this world are going to fuck it for the rest of us people because they believe in something that at it's root is violence. Screw there asses into the ground, put a bullet in their child's head, fucking kill them until they can't breath....

This is of course, the terrorists that do things in the name of their "holy" god "allah". Fuck'em. The US Army is ready.

im not going to cover the other points u made cause most already did but wtf are u talking about in those last two paragraphs? muslims of this world? so now ur making a blanket statement for +billion muslims in this world? do u even realize if all +billion muslims were terrorist and united things woudl be a million times worse in terms of terrorism? douche. so because a small portion of the muslims of the world resort to terrorism we should do the same and kill thier children? kill them till they cant breath? does that even make sense?

and i am fucking tired of this freaking labeling of what Allah really is. Allah IS JUST THE ARABIC WORD FOR GOD!!!!

wtf do u mean by thier "holy god"? muslims believe in the same god as jews and christians.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

You know what I find more shocking than this, is that here at GAF people get more upset about Bush claiming "Right to Waive Torture Laws" than Americans being burned, mutilated and hung like slaughtered sheep.

1) George W. Bush is not my favorite person, but as "leader of the free world" I hold him to a higher standard than renegade terrorists.

2) George W. Bush is supposed to be my representative to the world. I did not vote for him, but it's partially my responsibility to voice discontent if our elected officials do things I consider wrong. Believe me, if the people who desecrate the corpses of our soldiers were running for office I wouldn't support their campaign either.

 

[Phoenix]

This John Titor stuff is scaring the shit outta me.

You're kidding me. Scary how? By his own admission his predictions for his worldline don't have to happen in ours even IF he does really come from the future.

 

[Triumph]

What some of you are missing is that roughly 70% of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are innocent, according to the Red Cross. So we're not torturing terrorists or insurgents, but common Iraqi citizens that have committed NO crime.

As far as Bush's cutesy "I do not condone torture" stance, didn't he ALSO say that he would abide by the Attorney General and Dept. of Justice's suggestions, which basically endorse using torture? Can some of you people read?

 

[Ripclawe]

What some of you are missing is that roughly 70% of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are innocent, according to the Red Cross. So we're not torturing terrorists or insurgents, but common Iraqi citizens that have committed NO crime.

As far as Bush's cutesy "I do not condone torture" stance, didn't he ALSO say that he would abide by the Attorney General and Dept. of Justice's suggestions, which basically endorse using torture? Can some of you people read?

No, he said he accepted the legal conclusion of the AG and DOJ that he has the right to suspend Geneva, BUT prisoners must be treated humanely.

as for that 70% of prisoners in Abu Ghraib are innocent nonsense the Red Cross is spewing, What they actually said is that up to 90% of everyone in the prison is innocent which is complete bullshit. its not just detainees in there.

 

[darscot]

Considering none of the prisoners in there have ever had a trial they are all innocent under US laws. Of course that doesn't apply because there just being tortured untill the confess then there is no need for a trial.

 

[pestul]

5% innocent is bad enough when torture is involved.

 

[Triumph]

No, he said he accepted the legal conclusion of the AG and DOJ that he has the right to suspend Geneva, BUT prisoners must be treated humanely.

as for that 70% of prisoners in Abu Ghraib are innocent nonsense the Red Cross is spewing, What they actually said is that up to 90% of everyone in the prison is innocent which is complete bullshit. its not just detainees in there.

I'd really like to see you prove the assertion that they're guilty of something. Really.

And in your expert opinion, HAVE the prisoners been treated humanely? I don't think you can argue that they have. Further, how can the directives from Justice and Defense NOT be seen as contributing the scandal? Sorry buddy, you can't have it both ways. Either torture is wrong and we don't do it, or it's an acceptable practice to get information. Which is it?

 

[xsarien]

You know, I could just become a broken record and say my piece on this, but I'm fairly certain most of you would know what I was going to say anyway.

So I'll just skip that part and ask:

Ripclawe, what in God's fucking name will it take for you to stop defending Bush at every possible [wrong] turn he makes?

 

[bionic77]

No, he said he accepted the legal conclusion of the AG and DOJ that he has the right to suspend Geneva, BUT prisoners must be treated humanely.

as for that 70% of prisoners in Abu Ghraib are innocent nonsense the Red Cross is spewing, What they actually said is that up to 90% of everyone in the prison is innocent which is complete bullshit. its not just detainees in there.

There is no possible way to know if that number is legit of bogus unless those guys get a fair trial where all the facts can come out, of course the Bush administration is not about justice so let the innocent rot with the guilty. Personally, that 70% number does sound a bit high, but who knows. Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan aside, I think most people are for the idea of the Gitmo detainees getting a trial. The ones who are proven to be terrorists should be punished and the ones who are not should be given their freedom.

 

[gofreak]

Ripclawe, what in God's fucking name will it take for you to stop defending Bush at every possible [wrong] turn he makes?

I would love this answered too. How far does it have to go before even the blindest of Bush-ites come to criticise him?

 

[Ripclawe]

I never said all interrogation techniques are wrong and should not be used, but most techinques considered "torture" should not be used because of not getting reliable information. You are trying rather clumsily to argue no interrogation should be used which is ridiculous considering by Red Cross standards hitting with a nerf bat is harsh torture.


If we capture another Khalid sheik mohammed important figure, water board away.

 

[Ripclawe]

You know, I could just become a broken record and say my piece on this, but I'm fairly certain most of you would know what I was going to say anyway.

So I'll just skip that part and ask:

Ripclawe, what in God's fucking name will it take for you to stop defending Bush at every possible [wrong] turn he makes?

Just because I agree with the stance, I am blindly defending him? You hate him, so your reasoning is that anyone who agrees with him is wrong? give me a break. I won't defend Bush on even thinking of giving illegal immigrants legal status. how about that?

 

[darscot]

I have to disagree on the "most people want a trial" point. I think most people wish these people could be given a fair trial. These guys were captured and in held with no rights for how long? Every single one of them would walk. Then will see how many people really wanted them to have trial. Thats the sad part I guess no one really cares about the innocent or the ones they torture. The US public believes these people are a serious risk and wants them dead or locked up no matter what the cost.

 

[Triumph]

The problem is that it's impossible to tell what his stance is. He says that the administration does not condone torture, but then says that he supports the Justice and Defense Department assertions that the Geneva convention(preventing, you know, TORTURE) does not apply to terrorists. So which is it? And people say Kerry waffles.

 

[Ripclawe]

The problem is that it's impossible to tell what his stance is. He says that the administration does not condone torture, but then says that he supports the Justice and Defense Department assertions that the Geneva convention(preventing, you know, TORTURE) does not apply to terrorists. So which is it? And people say Kerry waffles.

What part is hard to understand?

1) The Geneva convention do not apply to terrorists

2) Its within the legal right of President Bush to suspend if something comes up(AG and DOJ says so)

3) Bush said that they should follow geneva anyway.

4) Any interrogation techniques can be called "torture" shaving off their hair and beards and talking to them for 20 hours at a time is being called "harsh torture" I approve of using some techniques that have a background of getting information, most techniques do not.

 

[Evolution VIII]

So how are we supposed to fight the terrorists? I'm not saying go out and string these fools up to a tree and start beating them with a whip, but there should be a level of aggressiveness that should be used to root out the perpetrators. So far, the Geneva Convention did not save Nick Berg, Paul Johnson, and that Korean guy, and I only pity those in the future who will be subject to executions at the hands of terrorists. These terrorists operate outside the Geneva Convention because the Geneva Convention applies to countries and its militaries, not individuals who are operate in a disorganized manner.

 

[Ferrio]

What part is hard to understand?

1) The Geneva convention do not apply to terrorists

Since when are Iraqis terrorists?

4) Any interrogation techniques can be called "torture" shaving off their hair and beards and talking to them for 20 hours at a time is being called "harsh torture" I approve of using some techniques that have a background of getting information, most techniques do not.

Do you approve of them electricuting their genitals then? Cause if memory serves me right, they weren't giving these guys a haircut.

 

[Diablos]

As much as I'd love to see the beheaders get beheaded themselves, we as a nation have to show that we are more civilized and less violent about such matters. If that means throwing those poor excuses for human beings in jail and then giving them lethal injection instead of cutting off their heads, so be it. Death is death. But what you must remember is that those guys are kind of in their own league; I'm pretty sure a LOT less people would care about how the killers of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Paul Johnson and Kim Sun-Il were treated in prision and during their time of execution (I hope to god it comes for each and every one of them).

This whole fiasco about the Bush administration and the Abu Ghraib prisioners is a totally different thing, and it seems that people such as Eminem don't make that distinction. According to ABC News (and I'm sure many other sources) I believe, 90% of the prisioners that were abused and tortured were ordinary citizens of Iraq, "accidentally" captured because they thought they were terrorists. Now, I know terrorists holding innocent people hostage (and knowing they are innocent because they don't see a difference between civilian and military forces), is much worse; but again... read my first sentence of this post. We just can't do that. As much as I'd love to cut off the heads of the terrorists that did just that to three people in less than a couple months, if someone gave me the blade and told me to go do it, I don't think I could. It's just not my nature. America needs to set that example, if we come off as being brutal killers then, perhaps to us American citizens, we feel better (especially if it is done to those select terrorists), but to the rest of the world, it doesn't help our cause... and our cause outside of our own country is not respected as is.

 

[FightyF]

Ripclawe: Forget about defending Bush, how can you defend evil, inhumane acts? How can you condone the breaking of international law?

Under the Geneva Conventions, the people in Gitmo are NOT terrorists. That has to be shown by a tribunal, something that the Bush Administration has not allowed. If they simply follow the rules, they can get what they want, but why are they not following the rules? What are they afraid of?

Bush says they should follow the Geneva Conventions. But they aren't. The GC is flagrantly being ignored by the Bush Administration. It looks like Bush is a snake. He says one thing, and does another. Americans can't sit idle while this man seeks to destroy the US's rep around the World. It won't be too long before we are seen in the same manner as the terrorists...cowardly, inhumane, criminals (breaking international laws makes us international criminals) that only care for ourselves.

 

[Diablos]

That's what people fail to realize. Just because we are the strongest nation in the world does not mean everyone is going to shut up and accept our opinion ("our" being Bush and the Bush administration). We've ALREADY ruined our reputation to a lot of other countries...

 

[Kuroyume]

You know what I find more shocking than this, is that here at GAF people get more upset about Bush claiming "Right to Waive Torture Laws" than Americans being burned, mutilated and hung like slaughtered sheep.

oh, that's part of the war, it happens. BUT BUSH CLAIMED THE RIGHT TO WAIVE TORTURE LAWS??? HUMANITY IS DOOMED.

or wait, I'll quote an actual response: "There really is no hope for humanity."


Jesus. If torture can somehow stop THAT^ (and I'm not saying it can/will), then go for it. But I guess a lot of you would rather see more beheaded and mutilated American corpses, so long as Bush doesn't torture anyone.

Umm... they were beating burning corpses, not messing around with human beings (yeah they were alive, but were dead by then.) Honestly I agree that this is a bit overblown when you compare this behavior (which is comparable to military or college level hazing) to Saddam's torture (I've seen videos and let's say unnecessary amputations without anesthesia were big with him) tactics. Either way it's wrong for Bushman to waive these laws and then still expect these laws to be respected in other countries EVEN if these things were done against murderers.

 

[Saint Cornelius]

You're kidding me. Scary how? By his own admission his predictions for his worldline don't have to happen in ours even IF he does really come from the future.

The coincidences of the things he talks about are very scary, that's how. Sure it might just be a bunch of bullshit but I could definitely see the Bush Administration starting the domino effect that would lead us right into what John talks about.

You don't have to talk down to me, you know.

 

[Evolution VIII]

And how many more beheadings and murders will it take before we realize that we need a different type of tactic to fight terrorists? The terrorists do not care about the rules, but they do care about causing as much disunity among world leaders. While I understand that America should take the moral high ground when it comes to dealing with its detainees, we are fighting an enemy that is organized, unruly, and will do whatever it takes to ensure that their point gets across to as many individuals as possible.

Also, what Bush is doing any president would do. You're going to try and find ways of doing this within the law.

 

[mebigtrollhentai]

Have you guys ever talked to a Middle Eastern person? They are proud people who are willing to suicide in order to win. So if there is no torturing involving then these people will never talk.

False torture?, I don't think they intend to just torture any Middle Eastern person found over seas. If they are captured enemies, I don't see why we can't force the information out to save our troops life over there.

 

[Fusebox]

Just thought I'd add that I wouldn't hesitate to torture the absolute shit out of any of you guys if it meant protecting my home and family.