• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Were 9/11 Victims Tortured?

Were 9/11 Victims Tortured?


  • Total voters
    17
I am going to use a legal definition: 18 U.S. Code § 2340 - Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute



You could make a potentially make a case for C, though I am not sure. However, the hijackers where not "acting under the color of law", so under 18 U.S. Code § 2340, it would not be considered torture. I am not really sure how it would matter however. The hijackers are dead, so prosecuting them is kinda wasted effort, and trying to use what they did as moral justification for what was done later would fail, and miserably.

By your argument here, drug cartels have not tortured anyone (despite the fact that I've seen video of about a dozen headless bodies hung upside down while their heads were lined up in a neat row next to a wall). Those journalists who had their heads cut off were not tortured either. Nobody any civilian does to another civilian could ever be torture, no matter what. Is that you your position?
 
By your argument here, drug cartels have not tortured anyone (despite the fact that I've seen video of about a dozen headless bodies hung upside down while their heads were lined up in a neat row next to a wall). Those journalists who had their heads cut off were not tortured either. Nobody any civilian does to another civilian could ever be torture, no matter what. Is that you your position?

Under that definition, correct. That makes what was done to them no less heinous. To me, the issue is not what specific law they broke, but that they committed very heinous crimes.
 
I think the point of the topic (on the radio, not your post) was to remind people of 9/11 and thus make people so angry they abandon reason in favor of their emotions, which cause them to wish endless amounts of pain and suffering for the people who perpetrate such acts. There's nothing to be gained by turning our country into a monster because the only way some of us are able to cope with our anger is to lash out with cruelty and violence. Terrorists cause pain and suffering because they feel that there is no other way for them to accomplish their goal. There is no good reason, but we don't have any reason at all. So I'm going to make a radical suggestion: let's not act like morons.

So there should be no reaction to terrorism? We're responsible for creating it any way so no big deal? I doubt you'll be able to sell that to many people but good luck.
 
I think the point of the topic (on the radio, not your post) was to remind people of 9/11 and thus make people so angry they abandon reason in favor of their emotions, which cause them to wish endless amounts of pain and suffering for the people who perpetrate such acts. There's nothing to be gained by turning our country into a monster because the only way some of us are able to cope with our anger is to lash out with cruelty and violence. Terrorists cause pain and suffering because they feel that there is no other way for them to accomplish their goal. There is no good reason, but we don't have any reason at all. So I'm going to make a radical suggestion: let's not act like morons.

Abandon reason? WTH? I'll tell you who is abandoning reason pal. They are those who have forgotten 9/11 was basically an inside job because
9/11 was performed by those who were here on expired Visas under Bill Clinton while taking flying lessons. Letting foreigners into this country and not keeping tabs on them can have adverse effects especially when you let people into this country who are known to have those who despise this country.
9/11 occurred because of a series of restrictions created over the course of over twenty years, Democrats and Republicans alike, that made it impossible for the FBI to share with the CIA on intelligence. They could connect the dots after the fact but what the Hell good does that do after the damage was done?
When you lose 3000 lives in such a way with threats of more to come, it becomes and extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary measures.
When you lose that perspective pal then you have lost it all.
 
Last edited:
Under that definition, correct. That makes what was done to them no less heinous. To me, the issue is not what specific law they broke, but that they committed very heinous crimes.

Why did you even bring that particular law into it if the law is not the issue? Torture has a much broader commonly understood definition that is no less valid and, in fact, more valid since this is not about charging anyone with a crime.
 
Why did you even bring that particular law into it if the law is not the issue? Torture has a much broader commonly understood definition that is no less valid and, in fact, more valid since this is not about charging anyone with a crime.

Because you have to define terms. If you do not define terms, you start arguing past each other. You asked a question, I found a definition under law and answered the question based on what the definition said. If you want people to use a specific definition of a word, you need to specify that in your OP. You did not, so I provided one for my answer.
 
Abandon reason? WTH? I'll tell you who is abandoning reason pal. They are those who have forgotten 9/11 was basically an inside job because
9/11 was performed by those who were here on expired Visas under Bill Clinton while taking flying lessons.

I don't think you know how inside job works. Government ineptitude does not an inside job make. Basically or otherwise. Sort of like, how what Obama says, and what you think he said, are not the same thing.
 
No, none of the victims on the plane were subject to torture, and the definition is inapplicable to the victims in the towers.

Sure they were. They were subjected to a great deal of mental torture. Those people knew what was happening to them. Think of those on Fight 93. They knew what happened to the other 3 planes, which is why they fought back. You can't say that wasn't mental torture. It was.

1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

The terrorists were waterboarded for 10 seconds. Yes, that was torture. This was equally as bad if not substantially worse.
 
This came up on talk radio and I thought it an interesting question because I haven't ever thought about it in those terms. Was it torture to be on one of those high jacked planes? How about being trapped in the WTC towers were the heat and smoke was so intense that several chose to leap to their deaths instead? I think a strong argument can be made that they were not only tortured, they were tortured to death. What do you think?

Attaching the poll now.

I voted "some were tortured". Anyone here who doesn't see that if nothing else, there was mental torture applied in this situation, is not being honest about it.
 
I don't think you know how inside job works. Government ineptitude does not an inside job make. Basically or otherwise. Sort of like, how what Obama says, and what you think he said, are not the same thing.

Oh please Hatuey, using "inside job" was pretty evident I was referring to a group of people that had taken up temporary residence in this country that our government was well aware were here.
 
For those who weren't killed instantly (most of them) Yes, but what was done to them is already highly illegal, and prevented and prosecuted when possible, unlike the CIA "interrogations" (although is illegal under international law)
 
You know what I've always found interesting? It's how often we're told we need to understand that terrorism is simply a backlash or a reaction to any number of things (all things we're doing and/or have done wrong), yet when terrorism occurs, often the same people will be incensed at the backlash or reaction that terrorism creates.

How their point is made does matter. They could've attacked a highly symbolic landmark that the statue of liberty, that was unoccupied, and it wouldn't be nearly so heinous and have united americans across the political spectrum. *Everyone* mourned the victims, except for jihadists.
 
I think its reasonable to believe that not everyone was going to die on impact. Those left to fight for their lives or jump were in fact victims of a planned attack that had its intended purpose.
 
WW2 bombs were mass killing, just the same as 9/11. The WW2 bombings were not mass murder, because killing done to military targets serving a nation we had issued a declaration of war against is not murder.

Torture, killing, murder, these words all have definitions.

So the entire city of hiroshima was a military target? Seriously?

There will always be some collateral damage, but that does fit my definition of mass murder
 
Sure they were. They were subjected to a great deal of mental torture. Those people knew what was happening to them. Think of those on Fight 93. They knew what happened to the other 3 planes, which is why they fought back. You can't say that wasn't mental torture. It was.

1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

The terrorists were waterboarded for 10 seconds. Yes, that was torture. This was equally as bad if not substantially worse.

Using that definition is fine, it is as good as any, but if you use that definition then there is no way you can fit what the hijackers did to that definition. What they did was not "under the color of law". Color (law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Sure they were. They were subjected to a great deal of mental torture. Those people knew what was happening to them. Think of those on Fight 93. They knew what happened to the other 3 planes, which is why they fought back. You can't say that wasn't mental torture. It was.

1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

The terrorists were waterboarded for 10 seconds. Yes, that was torture. This was equally as bad if not substantially worse.

I've highlighted the relevant words there.
 
The OP's argument is utter garbage. By the same logic, the U.S. "tortured" Nazi soldiers to death when we bombed the buildings they were located in.

Torture is a deliberate intentional intention to inflicting suffering on another human being. Most ways of violently killing people also lead to suffering, but that is a byproduct, not the purpose of the act. 9/11 was mass murder, not torture.

falling08.jpg


I wonder how tortured this guy felt before this pic.
 
If you completely redefine the word torture to render it entirely meaningless, then yes, they were tortured.

Which is what the left has been doing since the release of this Senate report on enhanced interogation.
 
So there should be no reaction to terrorism? We're responsible for creating it any way so no big deal? I doubt you'll be able to sell that to many people but good luck.

I didn't say either of those things. I said that supporting torture because you want terrorists to suffer isn't productive. I'd say the same thing about the death penalty. If you think torture or capital punishment are beneficial to us in some way, then so be it. But I don't accept "you want to outlaw torture? Have you forgotten what those terrorists did to us on 9/11?" to be a valid argument for the use of torture.

9/11 occurred because of a series of restrictions created over the course of over twenty years, Democrats and Republicans alike, that made it impossible for the FBI to share with the CIA on intelligence. They could connect the dots after the fact but what the Hell good does that do after the damage was done?
When you lose 3000 lives in such a way with threats of more to come, it becomes and extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary measures.
When you lose that perspective pal then you have lost it all.

That's fine but that was completely unrelated to my post.
 
"Tortuous" and "torture" are not the same. Under such sloppy word usage, every person ever shot or bombed by the US military was "tortured." Death being tortuous does not equate to someone doing torture.
 
This came up on talk radio and I thought it an interesting question because I haven't ever thought about it in those terms. Was it torture to be on one of those high jacked planes? How about being trapped in the WTC towers were the heat and smoke was so intense that several chose to leap to their deaths instead? I think a strong argument can be made that they were not only tortured, they were tortured to death. What do you think?

Attaching the poll now.

Oh boy. A transparent attempt to justify torture led by the US.
 
This came up on talk radio and I thought it an interesting question because I haven't ever thought about it in those terms. Was it torture to be on one of those high jacked planes? How about being trapped in the WTC towers were the heat and smoke was so intense that several chose to leap to their deaths instead? I think a strong argument can be made that they were not only tortured, they were tortured to death. What do you think?

Attaching the poll now.

Interesting, by definition of the word torture, yes some were in fact tortured.
 
This came up on talk radio and I thought it an interesting question because I haven't ever thought about it in those terms. Was it torture to be on one of those high jacked planes? How about being trapped in the WTC towers were the heat and smoke was so intense that several chose to leap to their deaths instead? I think a strong argument can be made that they were not only tortured, they were tortured to death.
What do you think?
Attaching the poll now.



Check with Dick Cheney and others who served in the G.W. Bush mis-administration.

They're the torture experts. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom