View Full Version : US petition
vidcc
11-16-2005, 03:33 PM
This is for citizens of the USA.
http://www.tortureisnotus.org/
I appreciate our conservative members may not like the people that set this up but this is about human values. This is about us being better than countries that torture. We are civilised, let's not practice the very thing we claim to be fighting.
Busyman
11-16-2005, 03:58 PM
Torture has been around and will always be around.
Secret CIA prisons will always be around.
If the US (among other countries) signs on to a no torture policy, it will still happen, so they may as well sign on.:shifty:
Rat Faced
11-16-2005, 05:04 PM
Well, as its just been released that the Iraqi government is already doing the very things that the Hussain regime was supposedly removed for...
And the US/UK were and are still doing the torture thing by all accounts...
There can be no harm in signing... although it will be ignored :P
ziggyjuarez
11-16-2005, 05:38 PM
waste of time.
GepperRankins
11-16-2005, 06:14 PM
maybe signing it would send the right message to the rest of the world :ermm:
Busyman
11-16-2005, 06:37 PM
Well, as its just been released that the Iraqi government is already doing the very things that the Hussain regime was supposedly removed for...
And the US/UK were and are still doing the torture thing by all accounts...
There can be no harm in signing... although it will be ignored :P
Eggzacklee.;)
Sorta like the Non Nuclear Prolifer....well that thing with the nukes.:unsure:
Everose
11-17-2005, 01:19 AM
Thanks for the link, Vid. I read where some of the prisoners they found in Iraq were paralized and some with areas of skin missing.
do you have anyplace where one can petition to surrender from the human race
I appreciate our conservative members may not like the people that set this up but this is about human values.
So Hank and I are precluded from any credible discussion of "human values", then?
Damned intolerant of you.
Funny; now the world is divided between "conservatives" and "not-conservatives".
So much for unity, huh?
GepperRankins
11-17-2005, 02:37 AM
the not-conservatives tend to be more unified though, like
Everose
11-17-2005, 02:49 AM
[QUOTE=vidcc]
I appreciate our conservative members may not like the people that set this up but this is about human values. QUOTE]
I saw this and read it as such that you were saying 'it doesn't matter who set this up, what matters is human values, something we all care about.'
Did I misunderstand your meaning, Vid?
muchspl3
11-17-2005, 05:00 AM
petitions don't work, the sooner you realize this the better off you are
[QUOTE=vidcc]
I appreciate our conservative members may not like the people that set this up but this is about human values. QUOTE]
I saw this and read it as such that you were saying 'it doesn't matter who set this up, what matters is human values, something we all care about.'
Did I misunderstand your meaning, Vid?
Only insofar as you need to remember that "other-than-conservatives" determine what or who conservatives are allowed to "like" or "advocate", 'Rose.
If they say it's off limits, or especially "human values", they are staking out that particular cause/sentiment for themselves; conservatives may pay lip-service, but only as permitted by "other-than-conservatives", who should be defined here as those who are liberal/socialist, but have a sensitivity to labels, and so apply them only to others.
3RA1N1AC
11-17-2005, 11:30 AM
Funny; now the world is divided between "conservatives" and "not-conservatives".
"You're either with us or against us." -- George W. Bush (he's a uniter, not a divider)
not to say that boosh speaks for every conservative. but. you know. he's got some connections.
Busyman
11-17-2005, 01:19 PM
Funny; now the world is divided between "conservatives" and "not-conservatives".
"You're either with us or against us." -- George W. Bush (he's a uniter, not a divider)
not to say that boosh speaks for every conservative. but. you know. he's got some connections.
He did until now...as there are other Repubs jockeying for the position of the next Prez.
Everose
11-17-2005, 01:21 PM
[QUOTE=Everose]
Only insofar as you need to remember that "other-than-conservatives" determine what or who conservatives are allowed to "like" or "advocate", 'Rose.
That practice is rather limiting.....or narrow, is it not?
If they say it's off limits, or especially "human values", they are staking out that particular cause/sentiment for themselves; conservatives may pay lip-service, but only as permitted by "other-than-conservatives", who should be defined here as those who are liberal/socialist, but have a sensitivity to labels, and so apply them only to others.
Short cuts into the understanding of other humans and their beliefs. We all take them, don't we. Once suposedly defined, labeled and limited.
vidcc
11-17-2005, 03:17 PM
I appreciate our conservative members may not like the people that set this up but this is about human values.
This line is to stick to the point of what it is about which is the value that torture is wrong. It is to avoid any argument that the people that set it up are doing so to make a partisan dig at this administration. I wrote it so people would view the point as is and not any partisan agenda. I wrote it so motives would not be questioned.
you either obviously missed that point or decided to be partisan and deflect from the subject.
Rose got it, I wonder why you questioned it. Could it be that you really are paranoid and you see everything as a personal attack?
Mr JP Fugley
11-17-2005, 04:11 PM
Are you back to the "I started the thread, so I'll decide how people debate the point" routine.
Surely as long as people stay relevant, then they can choose what the issues are. If they think that the organisation having an agenda is important, then they should say that.
Freedom of expression and so forth.
vidcc
11-17-2005, 04:29 PM
Are you back to the "I started the thread, so I'll decide how people debate the point" routine.
Surely as long as people stay relevant, then they can choose what the issues are. If they think that the organisation having an agenda is important, then they should say that.
Freedom of expression and so forth.
The line was questioned by someone so I cleared up what it said and why I wrote it...you have a problem with that?
Mr JP Fugley
11-17-2005, 05:00 PM
Are you back to the "I started the thread, so I'll decide how people debate the point" routine.
Surely as long as people stay relevant, then they can choose what the issues are. If they think that the organisation having an agenda is important, then they should say that.
Freedom of expression and so forth.
The line was questioned by someone so I cleared up what it said and why I wrote it...you have a problem with that?
No problem with you clearing up what you meant. A problem with you trying to put boundaries on how people discuss things.
vidcc
11-17-2005, 05:10 PM
The line was questioned by someone so I cleared up what it said and why I wrote it...you have a problem with that?
No problem with you clearing up what you meant. A problem with you trying to put boundaries on how people discuss things.
Troll http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9587/hugetired5tf.gif
Rose got it, I wonder why you questioned it. Could it be that you really are paranoid and you see everything as a personal attack?
Not at all; I merely wondered why you felt compelled to introduce a link to a cause you apparently advocate by qualifying it past conservatives.
After all, you could have omitted the first sentence in it's entirety without affecting your ostensible intent.
The only other reason for such an opening disclaimer would be in service of an urge to patronize, and I'd rather not believe that you'd do that maliciously, much less out of simple ignorance.
In all honesty, I was so put off I actually forewent my curiouslty about your petition and didn't read it anyway, which, if I am in any way typical of conservatives, renders it (at the very least) an unfortunate miscalculation on your part.
However, if you will humble yourself before me, I will deign to read it; after all, I'm not that big a prick.:P
Busyman
11-17-2005, 11:36 PM
No problem with you clearing up what you meant. A problem with you trying to put boundaries on how people discuss things.
Troll http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9587/hugetired5tf.gif
'Cause he's right?
Busyman
11-17-2005, 11:39 PM
Rose got it, I wonder why you questioned it. Could it be that you really are paranoid and you see everything as a personal attack?
Not at all; I merely wondered why you felt compelled to introduce a link to a cause you apparently advocate by qualifying it past conservatives.
After all, you could have omitted the first sentence in it's entirety without affecting your ostensible intent.
The only other reason for such an opening disclaimer would be in service of an urge to patronize, and I'd rather not believe that you'd do that maliciously, much less out of simple ignorance.
In all honesty, I was so put off I actually forewent my curiouslty about your petition and didn't read it anyway, which, if I am in any way typical of conservatives, renders it (at the very least) an unfortunate miscalculation on your part.
However, if you will humble yourself before me, I will deign to read it; after all, I'm not that big a prick.:P
Well, damn...I haven't deigned to read it. You whatchu sayin'?:lookaroun
Not at all; I merely wondered why you felt compelled to introduce a link to a cause you apparently advocate by qualifying it past conservatives.
After all, you could have omitted the first sentence in it's entirety without affecting your ostensible intent.
The only other reason for such an opening disclaimer would be in service of an urge to patronize, and I'd rather not believe that you'd do that maliciously, much less out of simple ignorance.
In all honesty, I was so put off I actually forewent my curiouslty about your petition and didn't read it anyway, which, if I am in any way typical of conservatives, renders it (at the very least) an unfortunate miscalculation on your part.
However, if you will humble yourself before me, I will deign to read it; after all, I'm not that big a prick.:P
Well, damn...I haven't deigned to read it. You whatchu sayin'?:lookaroun
He wasn't trying to patronize you.
You're only black, and have not the slightest idea of the ordeal we (both of us) conservatives face on a daily basis.:huh:
Funny; now the world is divided between "conservatives" and "not-conservatives".
"You're either with us or against us." -- George W. Bush (he's a uniter, not a divider)
not to say that boosh speaks for every conservative. but. you know. he's got some connections.
I'm not going to defend Bush, but the Dems have been much more divisive than he has; they really hate being out of power, and reject every overture.
It's really funny.:D
hobbes
11-18-2005, 12:39 AM
All is fair in love and war.
One may establish a Geneva Convention to allow two foes to establish rules of conduct.
If one decides to chop off heads and make a video and the other feels compelled to give prisoners 3 squares a day and a pleasant cell, I call bullshit.
I am not better than torture for such a foe. That sort of ideologic chatter is for those who have no personal stake in a war and sit in the drawing room sipping brandy and telling people how they should act.
If lives can be saved by turning screws when up against an enemy that has no interest in observing any rules of conduct, then I say, "Git her done".
Above it, no way.
I'll grind their bones to make my bread.
Vidcc, you flip out when a kindergarten teacher tells your child to kick in a simulated karate leasson. Imagine your same child the subject of a torture/ execution video. You will find that your "better than that" dissociated philosophy will desintegrate into a "ride 'til we find them, kill them all" mentality.
"Better than that"? Brandy sipping words from someone who has nothing precious at stake.
All is fair in love and war.
One may establish a Geneva Convention to allow two foes to establish rules of conduct.
If one decides to chop off heads and make a video and the other feels compelled to give prisoners 3 squares a day and a pleasant cell, I call bullshit.
I am not better than torture for such a foe. That sort of ideologic chatter is for those who have no personal stake in a war and sit in the drawing room sipping brandy and telling people how they should act.
If lives can be saved by turning screws when up against an enemy that has no interest in observing any rules of conduct, then I say, "Git her done".
Above it, no way.
I'll grind their bones to make my bread.
Vidcc, you flip out when a kindergarten teacher tells your child to kick in a simulated karate leasson. Imagine your same child the subject of a torture/ execution video. You will find that your "better than that" dissociated philosophy will desintegrate into a "ride 'til we find them, kill them all" mentality.
"Better than that"? Brandy sipping words from someone who has nothing precious at stake.
Um, yes.
Just so, and all that.
BTW-welcome back to the fray, however temporary your stay.
vidcc
11-18-2005, 01:33 AM
It's simple.
If you think torture is ok don't sign the petition. If you think torture is not ok but don't care anyway, don't sign the petition. If you want your lawmakers to know you think torture is not ok sign the petition. If you want your lawmakers to know you think torture is not ok but don't wish to be associated with a left wing group write your own personal e.mail/letter.
Whatever you feel is appropriate just do that.
vidcc
11-18-2005, 01:37 AM
'Cause he's right?
no
Or you could try this...I believe it's Cheney's site.
http://www.tortureisus.org/
Busyman
11-18-2005, 01:42 PM
Well, damn...I haven't deigned to read it. You whatchu sayin'?:lookaroun
He wasn't trying to patronize you.
You're only black, and have not the slightest idea of the ordeal we (both of us) conservatives face on a daily basis.:huh:
Oh ok. Now I feel better.:mellow:
Btw, I'm not just black. I do have a tiny red stripe going down my left arm. It's just hard to see 'cause I'm so black.:ermm:
3RA1N1AC
11-18-2005, 02:14 PM
I do have a tiny red stripe going down my left arm.
going down your arm? most people prefer the red stripe to go down their pie-hole.
http://www.straight.com/images/MUS_BAR_RedStrip_55.jpg
Mr JP Fugley
11-18-2005, 03:47 PM
All is fair in love and war.
One may establish a Geneva Convention to allow two foes to establish rules of conduct.
If one decides to chop off heads and make a video and the other feels compelled to give prisoners 3 squares a day and a pleasant cell, I call bullshit.
I am not better than torture for such a foe. That sort of ideologic chatter is for those who have no personal stake in a war and sit in the drawing room sipping brandy and telling people how they should act.
If lives can be saved by turning screws when up against an enemy that has no interest in observing any rules of conduct, then I say, "Git her done".
Above it, no way.
I'll grind their bones to make my bread.
Vidcc, you flip out when a kindergarten teacher tells your child to kick in a simulated karate leasson. Imagine your same child the subject of a torture/ execution video. You will find that your "better than that" dissociated philosophy will desintegrate into a "ride 'til we find them, kill them all" mentality.
"Better than that"? Brandy sipping words from someone who has nothing precious at stake.
They stab one of your's, you shoot one of their's.
Nah, you must not allow yourself to lower your civilized standards, just because your enemy did it first. That just isn't right.
Has Star Trek taught us nothing.
Gripper
11-18-2005, 04:57 PM
When you are fighting fanatics who are willing to die for their beliefs,how far do you go,surely there are drugs today that'll make you sing like a bird,if that fails get pissed with them and they'll tell you allsorts
hobbes
11-18-2005, 07:32 PM
They stab one of your's, you shoot one of their's.
Nah, you must not allow yourself to lower your civilized standards, just because your enemy did it first. That just isn't right.
Has Star Trek taught us nothing.
I want to clearly point that I am totally against what happened at Abu Garab prison. It was done, NOT to extract military information, simply to allow some of our sickos to have fun, with tacit approval from above.
I think that most Americans were embarrassed by what happened there and we all felt that "we are better than that". And we either are or should be.
Trouble is that what was done there was already illegal, it just wasn't enforced. So, I think responders in this thread sort of have already echoed the pointlessness of said petition. You can put anything you want on paper, but without enforcement it is worthless.
I think that routine torture and humilation is completely unacceptable. It reallyaccomplishes nothing and is, in fact, great propaganda for the other side once such behavior is known.
Most of those poor Iraq soldiers were 18-25 and had enlisted in Saddams army as a way to obtain food and medical attention for their families. Like most American soldiers, they sign up for the benefits and hope like hell war does not break out.
These kids don't know anything of value. Torturing them yields no military gain and I agree that to do so, despite the fact that the other side is not being so nice, does in fact, make us the the very pigs, we are accusing others of being. We must have an internal sense of what is right.
I do reserve the right, in specific situations to turn the screws a bit when someone is captured that has specific information. I don't want to feel hand-tied by some piece of paper that says I can't touch him or I will be committing war crimes.
Again, it doesn't really matter, he is going to be tortured, no matter the legislation. I guess Cheney doesn't want the criminal charges to flow upstream and bite him in the ass.
And the insurgents aren't peons left out as target practice by some insane leader, they are self-recruited and they do know something. Who was harbouring them, how they got in, how the weapons are moved and I have no problem turning the screws on them to extract information.
Yes, I do think they should be placed in a habitable domicile and given clean water and food, but when interrogations are underway, things might get harsh. The information in his head could save my soldiers lives.
I think we all know that in certain situations, torture is used to get vital military information. The real problem was the pointless humilation and torture at Abu Garab, done to entertain a group of sickos. Sickos that were encouraged by leadership that looked the other way. It took torture from the hushed hidden backrooms and pasted it all over the web.
I do understand where Cheney is coming from. He can't just say "come on people get you heads out of your asses, torture occurs in every war, by every side. Sometimes you need to lean on people to get them to remember where the bomb is going to be placed, and what buildings the hijackers are going to target". Torture has and will continue to occur in very select situations and he doesn't want these incidents coming home to him. On the other hand, who can he blame for this reactionary petition, but himself.
Mr JP Fugley
11-18-2005, 09:06 PM
hobbes,
What you just said was, the end justifies the means. I disagree.
I believe in the rule of law and in due process. I do not believe that torture is an acceptable form of interrogation.
I do not believe that torturing people is acceptable, even if it would provide valuable military intelligence.
We cannot condemn people who use torture to obtain information they want. Then do it ourselves when it is us who want that information.
That is just wrong.
There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order.
Busyman
11-18-2005, 09:31 PM
No nation should openly support torture. However, we know every does it when necessary.
It is an under the table typathang.
Mr JP Fugley
11-18-2005, 10:29 PM
No nation should openly support torture. However, we know every does it when necessary.
It is an under the table typathang.
Is that kind of like.
" ... you don't want to know the truth."
hobbes,
What you just said was, the end justifies the means. I disagree.
I believe in the rule of law and in due process. I do not believe that torture is an acceptable form of interrogation.
I do not believe that torturing people is acceptable, even if it would provide valuable military intelligence.
We cannot condemn people who use torture to obtain information they want. Then do it ourselves when it is us who want that information.
That is just wrong.
There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order.
JP-
Would you agree with any intelligence-gathering methods that employed, uh....medication?
The kind that loosens lips and inhibitions?
Mr JP Fugley
11-18-2005, 10:46 PM
I would accept the use of copious quantities of t'apple.
Mr JP Fugley
11-18-2005, 10:47 PM
On a more serious note .... let me think about that.
On a more serious note .... let me think about that.
Willdoo.
hobbes
11-18-2005, 11:33 PM
hobbes,
What you just said was, the end justifies the means. I disagree.
I believe in the rule of law and in due process. I do not believe that torture is an acceptable form of interrogation.
I do not believe that torturing people is acceptable, even if it would provide valuable military intelligence.
We cannot condemn people who use torture to obtain information they want. Then do it ourselves when it is us who want that information.
That is just wrong.
There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order.
Like a mathmatician, I like to test limits.
If a single human knew where the detonation device was that would blow up the Earth, would I coerce him into revealing this location to me so that I could defuse the bomb or would I recognize a law on a piece of paper and let the world just go?
I would feel comfortable with my decision.
The motto that "America does not torture" looks dandy on a piece of paper, but it just seems so irrelevant on the battlefield. I think people just breakdown and do what they need to do.
You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.
What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.
In certain situations, philosophy gives way to human nature.
I guess my decision hinges on personal rights. If you have a prisoner that can potentially spare the lives of people you are enlisted to protect, are the rights of your prisoner to remain healthy and unharmed greater than the rights of your soldiers who are about to get killed.
No, not to me. I would fell devastated if I could have avoided disaster and I had not done my part. I would have more guilt over not doing than doing.
The problem is that there is a great tendancy for abuse. How does one know that a prisoner actually knows anything. That is why I have strictly limited the role of torture to individuals who we know, know something or at least are highly suspicious (the slippery slope).
That's probably why people don't really want to know about this under the table thingey. They want to ignore that their country might be brualizing countless people who have little chance of knowing anything and maintain the delusion that anytime someone is tortured, American lives are being saved.
Busyman
11-18-2005, 11:45 PM
hobbes,
What you just said was, the end justifies the means. I disagree.
I believe in the rule of law and in due process. I do not believe that torture is an acceptable form of interrogation.
I do not believe that torturing people is acceptable, even if it would provide valuable military intelligence.
We cannot condemn people who use torture to obtain information they want. Then do it ourselves when it is us who want that information.
That is just wrong.
Like a mathmatician, I like to test limits.
If a single human knew where the detonation device was that would blow up the Earth, would I coerce him into revealing this location to me so that I could defuse the bomb or would I recognize a law on a piece of paper and let the world just go?
I would feel comfortable with my decision.
The motto that "America does not torture" looks dandy on a piece of paper, but it just seems so irrelevant on the battlefield. I think people just breakdown and do what they need to do.
You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.
What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.
In certain situations, philosophy gives way to human nature.
I guess my decision hinges on personal rights. If you have a prisoner that can potentially spare the lives of people you are enlisted to protect, are the rights of your prisoner to remain healthy and unharmed greater than the rights of your soldiers who are about to get killed.
No, not to me. I would fell devastated if I could have avoided disaster and I had not done my part. I would have more guilt over not doing than doing.
The problem is that there is a great tendancy for abuse. How does one know that a prisoner actually knows anything. That is why I have strictly limited the role of torture to individuals who we know, know something or at least are highly suspicious (the slippery slope).
That's probably why people don't really want to know about this under the table thingey. They want to ignore that their country might be brualizing countless people who have little chance of knowing anything and maintain the delusion that anytime someone is tortured, American lives are being saved.
;)
I think it's funny that moral high grounders want all this spelled out.
Now I am realizing why Bush doesn't want all this spelled out. I mean there all this stuff about secret prisons and prisoner abuse coming out. Whose to say if he signs off on 'no torture' that more torture won't come to light?
I always figured there were secret prisons but I never thought in my lifetime that our country would hit such a low point that this information would be revealed.
Ya can't even have a good shadow government these days.....
I think it's stupid that prisoners have to be treated with dignity and respect.
However what it comes down to is that all countries want to able to treat prisoners badly a la torture, if necessary and don't want their countrymen, if prisoners of another country, treated badly.
Pretty simple.
All those who think that we are lowering our standards because the enemy has are fooling themselves. The standards have been low all along...just not on paper.
Whatever makes you feel better.:happy:
Mr JP Fugley
11-19-2005, 12:10 AM
See it's not just words to me. People should not be tortured, whatever the justification you may wish to present for it. We must be better than that.
If you say that we are entitled to torture for the "right reasons", then who are we to stop others using torture. Who are we to say that their ends are not sufficient to justify the torture they use. Who are we to make that judgement, we ourselves are torturers.
The end does not justify the means. If the means are wrong, then they are wrong, whatever the end they seek to achieve.
I find the idea of glibly accepting that torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to be shameful.
See it's not just words to me. People should not be tortured, whatever the justification you may wish to present for it. We must be better than that.
If you say that we are entitled to torture for the "right reasons", then who are we to stop others using torture. Who are we to say that their ends are not sufficient to justify the torture they use. Who are we to make that judgement, we ourselves are torturers.
The end does not justify the means. If the means are wrong, then they are wrong, whatever the end they seek to achieve.
I find the idea of glibly accepting that torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to be shameful.
Quit pissing about.
As to the meds, then?
hobbes
11-19-2005, 12:43 AM
See it's not just words to me. People should not be tortured, whatever the justification you may wish to present for it. We must be better than that.
If you say that we are entitled to torture for the "right reasons", then who are we to stop others using torture. Who are we to say that their ends are not sufficient to justify the torture they use. Who are we to make that judgement, we ourselves are torturers.
The end does not justify the means. If the means are wrong, then they are wrong, whatever the end they seek to achieve.
I find the idea of glibly accepting that torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to be shameful.
Could you please link me the thread in which people are being glib.
I think that is disingenuous reflection of the tone of the posts and I must deduct 5 tactics points for said manuveur.
Would you blow up the world and let those in the building die as in the scenarios given? I see it more as knocking down the gun before the bullet can be fired. I knock that hand down whichever way works.
Let us say that your Star Trekky friends beam you into the rigged building but you remain in full communication with your aide at the bombers side. What do you tell him to do? Now your survival becomes self defense and don't people normally do whatever it takes to survive? Why do you physically need to be in the building in order to know what the right thing to do is. You get that bomb defused, anyway you can.
I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.
Busyman
11-19-2005, 12:55 AM
See it's not just words to me. People should not be tortured, whatever the justification you may wish to present for it. We must be better than that.
If you say that we are entitled to torture for the "right reasons", then who are we to stop others using torture. Who are we to say that their ends are not sufficient to justify the torture they use. Who are we to make that judgement, we ourselves are torturers.
The end does not justify the means. If the means are wrong, then they are wrong, whatever the end they seek to achieve.
I find the idea of glibly accepting that torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to be shameful.
Could you please link me the thread in which people are being glib.
I think that is disingenuous reflection of the tone of the posts and I must deduct 5 tactics points for said manuveur.
Would you blow up the world and let those in the building die as in the scenarios given? I see it more as knocking down the gun before the bullet can be fired. I knock that hand down whichever way works.
Let us say that your Star Trekky friends beam you into the rigged building but you remain in full communication with your aide at the bombers side. What do you tell him to do? Now your survival becomes self defense and don't people normally do whatever it takes to survive? Why do you physically need to be in the building in order to know what the right thing to do is. You get that bomb defused, anyway you can.
I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.
hobbes some people are just a little more passive about things like that.
JP has already remarked to me that he'd rather beg for his kids life than protect them with a gun. No marks against him for that but it is telling.
Busyman
11-19-2005, 12:59 AM
See it's not just words to me. People should not be tortured, whatever the justification you may wish to present for it. We must be better than that.
If you say that we are entitled to torture for the "right reasons", then who are we to stop others using torture. Who are we to say that their ends are not sufficient to justify the torture they use. Who are we to make that judgement, we ourselves are torturers.
The end does not justify the means. If the means are wrong, then they are wrong, whatever the end they seek to achieve.
I find the idea of glibly accepting that torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to be shameful.
You should see what is considered torture.
I think if a prisoner misses a meal, that's torture.:blink:
Not allowing him proper rest is too, methinks.
Hell I wonder can you even put a prisoner in a darkened room with the only light shone coming from a swinging overhead lamp.
Mr JP Fugley
11-19-2005, 01:13 AM
I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.
Sorry, that's the way morals work and it is far from being glib. In fact to do so could not be further from glibness.
Busyman
11-19-2005, 01:30 AM
I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.
Sorry, that's the way morals work and it is far from being glib. In fact to do so could not be further from glibness.
Would you shoot stab a gentlemen that is about to kill your children?
hobbes
11-19-2005, 01:36 AM
I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.
Sorry, that's the way morals work and it is far from being glib. In fact to do so could not be further from glibness.
I agree entirely. My morals just came to a different conclusion, and with equal disinglibness.
In a difficult situation, what do you actually do and how do you justify to yourself.
The thing I enjoyed about philosophy class was the exercise in taking a principle to it's limit, as I have done here and seeing if it holds up.
For example:
Telling the truth is the right thing to do.
If jpol is hiding behind my counter and a madman with a gun walks in and asks if you are behind the counter, should I tell the truth?
What is the right thing to do?
My obligation to tell him that you are indeed behind the counter is a prima facia (at first appearance) obligation, but my greater obligation is to protect your life, so I lie and say that you have left the building.
By lying I have done the right thing.
I have therefore invalidated the statement that one should always tell the truth.
Just as I have attempted to explain, that in very specific situations, (as the one above, in which, telling the truth is the wrong thing to do) the dictum that the ends don't justify the means can take a similar fall. At first glance I should not violate the rights of my captive, but in reality I am ignoring the rights of those he is going to kill.
I take my morals as seriously as you take yours.
I'll have to go with Hobbes on this one, JayPee.
Morals are wonderful things, and, in the abstract and a certain short distance, situational ethics suck, but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail.
One can only hope to have honed neural influences finely enough to not preclude a degree of post-action rationalization and justification; the alternative is to be guilt-ridden over wrongful action.
I suppose, too, that the predilection for self-defense and defense of loved-ones plays it's role; we've been through that discussion in other places and at other times.
In any case, however, if one could hold to a non-combative posture in the face of mortal peril, such represents an utter divergence from the instinctual (and hopefully capable) defensive one.
These cannot be reconciled.
Everose
11-19-2005, 05:36 AM
Why are drugs like thiopental sodium not used to obtain information, as an alternative to torture?
Too unpredictable or not enough people trained to use it properly where needed?
Gripper
11-19-2005, 12:49 PM
May I ask who in this thread has seen a friend killed in battle,or had to take a life.
The answer to that may support your moral highground.
It is easy to debate subjects,not quite so easy to keep thinking clearly while a friend bleeds to death as you try to hold him together.
Mr JP Fugley
11-19-2005, 03:09 PM
I'll have to go with Hobbes on this one, JayPee.
Morals are wonderful things, and, in the abstract and a certain short distance, situational ethics suck, but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail.
One can only hope to have honed neural influences finely enough to not preclude a degree of post-action rationalization and justification; the alternative is to be guilt-ridden over wrongful action.
I suppose, too, that the predilection for self-defense and defense of loved-ones plays it's role; we've been through that discussion in other places and at other times.
In any case, however, if one could hold to a non-combative posture in the face of mortal peril, such represents an utter divergence from the instinctual (and hopefully capable) defensive one.
These cannot be reconciled.
" ....but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail." How often is torture carried out under such circumstances. I had presumed we were dealing with the extraction of intelligence from prisoners. Which would by definition be premeditated and not in "the heat of the moment".
It is easy to debate subjects,not quite so easy to keep thinking clearly while a friend bleeds to death as you try to hold him together.
True enough.
I am well aware, though, of people who have done this.
Their testimonies still fall to both sides of the issue.
I don't think one has to have been a soldier/combatant to have a valid debate, gripper; do you?
Mr JP Fugley
11-19-2005, 03:24 PM
Sorry, that's the way morals work and it is far from being glib. In fact to do so could not be further from glibness.
I agree entirely. My morals just came to a different conclusion, and with equal disinglibness.
In a difficult situation, what do you actually do and how do you justify to yourself.
The thing I enjoyed about philosophy class was the exercise in taking a principle to it's limit, as I have done here and seeing if it holds up.
For example:
Telling the truth is the right thing to do.
If jpol is hiding behind my counter and a madman with a gun walks in and asks if you are behind the counter, should I tell the truth?
What is the right thing to do?
My obligation to tell him that you are indeed behind the counter is a prima facia (at first appearance) obligation, but my greater obligation is to protect your life, so I lie and say that you have left the building.
By lying I have done the right thing.
I have therefore invalidated the statement that one should always tell the truth.
Just as I have attempted to explain, that in very specific situations, (as the one above, in which, telling the truth is the wrong thing to do) the dictum that the ends don't justify the means can take a similar fall. At first glance I should not violate the rights of my captive, but in reality I am ignoring the rights of those he is going to kill.
I take my morals as seriously as you take yours.
I am absolutely certain you do.
In the EU we have the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), I have mentioned this before. This gives people certain rights, however they are not all treated the same way. There is for example the right to privacy and everyone can expect that. However, under certain conditions and with the proper authority, that can be breached. An example would be the investigation of serious crimes.
Some rights are inviolable, these include the right not to be tortured. No matter the justification. This is a position with which I agree, I think that torture is wrong and that the fact that the State decides there are reasons which justify it makes no difference.
As quoted earlier
There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order. Article 4 of the Charter adheres to both the meaning and the scope of this universal prohibition.
As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.
Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.
" ....but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail." How often is torture carried out under such circumstances. I had presumed we were dealing with the extraction of intelligence from prisoners. Which would by definition be premeditated and not in "the heat of the moment".
Quite right; I went a bit off track making my point.
Allow me to attribute the drawing out of the "heated moment" phraseology to Hobbes' 'JP is hiding, and I won't give him up' and 'I can save these people by extracting a number from this guy' scenarios.
Do I support premeditated torture?
No-I'd rather "medicate" to get such info.
In short-time circumstances (in the field), that policy could change, but one would assume a prison (Abu Ghraib, in this case) to be reasonably well-equipped for interrogative purposes.
There is a relevant story about the American General Black Jack Pershing I'm going to look for...
Some rights are inviolable, these include the right not to be tortured. No matter the justification. This is a position with which I agree, I think that torture is wrong and that the fact that the State decides there are reasons which justify it makes no difference.
As quoted earlier
There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order. Article 4 of the Charter adheres to both the meaning and the scope of this universal prohibition.
As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.
Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.
The difficulty would seem to be that Al Qaeda is not a state, doesn't recognize such prohibitions, and warring parties strive for operational/tactical equality/superiority.
One side is to be hamstrung from "stooping", as it were, while the opposition is free not to "rise" to a higher standard.
This is the locus, is it not?
Mr JP Fugley
11-19-2005, 04:17 PM
Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.
There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.
But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.
Busyman
11-19-2005, 04:24 PM
Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.
There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.
But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.
Cool.
I have your kids stashed somewhere and they are going to die in 4 hours. You have me prisoner.
What do you do?
There is a dirty bomb set to go off in Scotland in 4 hours. I know the location but fuck you, you bastard!!!
What do you do?
Mr JP Fugley
11-19-2005, 04:49 PM
Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.
There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.
But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.
Cool.
I have your kids stashed somewhere and they are going to die in 4 hours. You have me prisoner.
What do you do?
There is a dirty bomb set to go off in Scotland in 4 hours. I know the location but fuck you, you bastard!!!
What do you do?
Phone Harry Callaghan, obviousement.
Gripper
11-19-2005, 05:22 PM
It is easy to debate subjects,not quite so easy to keep thinking clearly while a friend bleeds to death as you try to hold him together.
True enough.
I am well aware, though, of people who have done this.
Their testimonies still fall to both sides of the issue.
I don't think one has to have been a soldier/combatant to have a valid debate, gripper; do you?
No,true enough but it tends to colour your thinking on such things.
Terrorists do not play by the geneva convention,no mercy and no quarter should be offered to them.
A martyr can't kill you.
hobbes
11-19-2005, 05:26 PM
I am absolutely certain you do.
As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.
Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.
I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?
When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?
That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread.
It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.
Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.
The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.
It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.
I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.
I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.
Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.
There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.
But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.
Noted; I was referring only to Al Qaeda and terrorists in general.
True enough.
I am well aware, though, of people who have done this.
Their testimonies still fall to both sides of the issue.
I don't think one has to have been a soldier/combatant to have a valid debate, gripper; do you?
No,true enough but it tends to colour your thinking on such things.
Terrorists do not play by the geneva convention,no mercy and no quarter should be offered to them.
A martyr can't kill you.
Agreed, on all three points.
Busyman
11-19-2005, 07:36 PM
I am absolutely certain you do.
As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.
Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.
I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?
When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?
That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread.
It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.
Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.
The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.
It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.
I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.
I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.
I stand by my initial stance. Torture is wrong. :snooty:
Mr JP Fugley
11-19-2005, 07:45 PM
I am absolutely certain you do.
As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.
Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.
I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?
When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?
That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread.
It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.
Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.
The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.
It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.
I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.
I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.
Your point seems to be that it is OK for your State to torture in order to gain military intelligence, so long as they don't get caught. Your argument also reads that it is such a useful weapon that the "good" it does outweighs the fact that it is wrong. I and the EU disagree, however we also disagree on various other things, so that's OK. If you (plural) choose to torture your prisoners it is a matter for you, however you must see that it makes you no better than them.
And again you make value judgements on it. Our torture is OK because we gain intelligence from it. Theirs is not because .... what you said. You are making it a one way street, you are saying that torture isOK so long as it's torture which the US approves of. Frayed knot, old bean. If you say that States can torture under certain circumstances, then it's up to the State to decide on the circumstances, not you. Unless you have an agreement on that, but you decided the agreement didn't count.
"That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread." I don't really understand, why does it not apply here.
"I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury." Are you Jack Nicholson at all.
I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?
When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?
That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread.
It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.
Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.
The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.
It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.
I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.
I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.
Your point seems to be that it is OK for your State to torture in order to gain military intelligence, so long as they don't get caught. Your argument also reads that it is such a useful weapon that the "good" it does outweighs the fact that it is wrong. I and the EU disagree, however we also disagree on various other things, so that's OK. If you (plural) choose to torture your prisoners it is a matter for you, however you must see that it makes you no better than them.
And again you make value judgements on it. Our torture is OK because we gain intelligence from it. Theirs is not because .... what you said. You are making it a one way street, you are saying that torture isOK so long as it's torture which the US approves of. Frayed knot, old bean. If you say that States can torture under certain circumstances, then it's up to the State to decide on the circumstances, not you. Unless you have an agreement on that, but you decided the agreement didn't count.
"That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread." I don't really understand, why does it not apply here.
"I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury." Are you Jack Nicholson at all.
So, then.
Would using medical means to extract information be cheating, or not?
I feel being made to wait for your answer is unduly tortuous, and if you do not respond, I shall petition the U.N. for a resolution you may ignore for 10-12 years, at which point I'll attack you unilaterally.
Just so you know.
hobbes
11-19-2005, 08:54 PM
[QUOTE=hobbes]
Your point seems to be that it is OK for your State to torture in order to gain military intelligence, so long as they don't get caught. Your argument also reads that it is such a useful weapon that the "good" it does outweighs the fact that it is wrong. I and the EU disagree, however we also disagree on various other things, so that's OK. If you (plural) choose to torture your prisoners it is a matter for you, however you must see that it makes you no better than them.
And again you make value judgements on it. Our torture is OK because we gain intelligence from it. Theirs is not because .... what you said. You are making it a one way street, you are saying that torture isOK so long as it's torture which the US approves of. Frayed knot, old bean. If you say that States can torture under certain circumstances, then it's up to the State to decide on the circumstances, not you. Unless you have an agreement on that, but you decided the agreement didn't count.
"That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread." I don't really understand, why does it not apply here.
.
I'm not saying that it is "ok" if they are not caught. I'm saying that certain situations will arise in which they will do it anyway. Despite repercussions, if caught. I am placing philosphy to the side and acknowledging the animals that we are. This is admitting that it does happen, it is saying that under certain circumstances I can understand why it was done. That does not mean that it is a "good thing" or that I encourage a good stealthy ass beating.
I have outlined specific examples in which it would be ok, to my conscience, to torture. I have clearly stated why the use of torture at both Abu Garab AND the given example involving US Military soldiers was inappropriate.
I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?
The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it.
I see no obligation for a unilateral application. But when the general public found out what was going on at Abu Garab, the overwhelming reaction I noted State-side was extreme disappointment. Our dirty laundry, cut and dry, out there for the whole world to look at and re-enforce people beliefs or alienate allies. Stupid fucking Americans, no better than Saddam. Americans have a sense of what is appropriate and we should definitely be better than that.
And again, even in the presence of your fancy documents and both sides fully voicing agreement about upholding the Geneva convention to the letter, torture still occurs, but the incidence is far lower because any documented violation would have serious consequences, such as war crimes convictions.
I'm not FOR torture, I don't enjoy it, but I do admit that in certain circumstances it is a necessary evil. This has been clearly illustrated. You would stand by while your fellow soldiers were being blown to bits and I would be inflicting major pain upon my enemy. After all, he is a suicide bomber, he wants to die. No discussion will help, you need to talk to him in a language he can understand--pain.
I'm getting mine out alive and you can stand their with your crisp document explaining how what you did was the right thing to do.
I have also clearly stated that one must determine an acceptable standard of taking care of the grunts (common soldier). I am against the systematic beating, starving, terrorizing and humilating soldiers out of spite or hatred. Put them in a cell and treat them as we treat our own inmates. That care should be independent of what the other side is doing. Torturing their grunts in no way aides our cause. That would take us down to their level.
They shoot at us and kill our soldiers, we shoot back and kill theirs. That makes us no better than them either, but I suppose we'll keep shooting.
Mr JP Fugley
11-19-2005, 09:00 PM
j2
Sorry, but I just don't know enough about it.
How are drugs administered.
What are the immediate, mid term and long effects of the drugs used.
Do they cause physical damage.
Do they cause emotional damage.
Sorry I just don't know, but I will opine when I can.
Rat Faced
11-19-2005, 09:09 PM
The thing about torture, which is probably the main reason it stopped being used in the "Civilised Countries"... is that you get to hear what the guy being tortured thinks you want to hear, which is not necessarily the truth.
You therefore go and get the next guy thats been implicated by a bad method of information gathering and the cycle goes on.
You follow false leads and torture totally innocent people.
Then some nice big country comes along and changes the regime because you used those methods... (after their first "reason" is found to be false) and then you find they are doing the same thing.
Mr JP Fugley
11-19-2005, 09:09 PM
I'm not saying that it is "ok" if they are not caught. I'm saying that certain situations will arise in which they will do it anyway. Despite repercussions, if caught. I am placing philosphy to the side and acknowledging the animals that we are. This is admitting that it does happen, it is saying that under certain circumstances I can understand why it was done. That does not mean that it is a "good thing" or that I encourage a good stealthy ass beating.
I have outlined specific examples in which it would be ok, to my conscience, to torture. I have clearly stated why the use of torture at both Abu Garab AND the given example involving US Military soldiers was inappropriate.
I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?
The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it.
I see no obligation for a unilateral application. But when the general public found out what was going on at Abu Garab, the overwhelming reaction I noted State-side was extreme disappointment. Our dirty laundry, cut and dry, out there for the whole world to look at and re-enforce people beliefs or alienate allies. Stupid fucking Americans, no better than Saddam. Americans have a sense of what is appropriate and we should definitely be better than that.
And again, even in the presence of your fancy documents and both sides fully voicing agreement about upholding the Geneva convention to the letter, torture still occurs, but the incidence is far lower because any documented violation would have serious consequences, such as war crimes convictions.
I'm not FOR torture, I don't enjoy it, but I do admit that in certain circumstances it is a necessary evil. This has been clearly illustrated. You would stand by while your fellow soldiers were being blown to bits and I would be inflicting major pain upon my enemy. After all, he is a suicide bomber, he wants to die. No discussion will help, you need to talk to him in a language he can understand--pain.
I'm getting mine out alive and you can stand their with your crisp document explaining how what you did was the right thing to do.
I have also clearly stated that one must determine an acceptable standard of taking care of the grunts (common soldier). I am against the systematic beating, starving, terrorizing and humilating soldiers out of spite or hatred. Put them in a cell and treat them as we treat our own inmates. That care should be independent of what the other side is doing. Torturing their grunts in no way aides our cause. That would take us down to their level.
They shoot at us and kill our soldiers, we shoot back and kill theirs. That makes us no better than them either, but I suppose we'll keep shooting.
Gotcha, it's OK to torture certain people.
If they are not soldiers then they are criminals. Is it OK to torture all criminals, or just some. Who's deciding this time.
If we aren't torturing the "grunts" can we torture the soldiers who may have specific intelligence that can help us. Say we capture a General, can we torture her.
"I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?" Sorry, I missed the meeting where we agreed that you (plural) got to say when torture was OK. How did the vote go.
"The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it." We did, does it not count when the other country didn't.
Busyman
11-19-2005, 09:11 PM
I'm not saying that it is "ok" if they are not caught. I'm saying that certain situations will arise in which they will do it anyway. Despite repercussions, if caught. I am placing philosphy to the side and acknowledging the animals that we are. This is admitting that it does happen, it is saying that under certain circumstances I can understand why it was done. That does not mean that it is a "good thing" or that I encourage a good stealthy ass beating.
I have outlined specific examples in which it would be ok, to my conscience, to torture. I have clearly stated why the use of torture at both Abu Garab AND the given example involving US Military soldiers was inappropriate.
I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?
The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it.
I see no obligation for a unilateral application. But when the general public found out what was going on at Abu Garab, the overwhelming reaction I noted State-side was extreme disappointment. Our dirty laundry, cut and dry, out there for the whole world to look at and re-enforce people beliefs or alienate allies. Stupid fucking Americans, no better than Saddam. Americans have a sense of what is appropriate and we should definitely be better than that.
And again, even in the presence of your fancy documents and both sides fully voicing agreement about upholding the Geneva convention to the letter, torture still occurs, but the incidence is far lower because any documented violation would have serious consequences, such as war crimes convictions.
I'm not FOR torture, I don't enjoy it, but I do admit that in certain circumstances it is a necessary evil. This has been clearly illustrated. You would stand by while your fellow soldiers were being blown to bits and I would be inflicting major pain upon my enemy. After all, he is a suicide bomber, he wants to die. No discussion will help, you need to talk to him in a language he can understand--pain.
I'm getting mine out alive and you can stand their with your crisp document explaining how what you did was the right thing to do.
I have also clearly stated that one must determine an acceptable standard of taking care of the grunts (common soldier). I am against the systematic beating, starving, terrorizing and humilating soldiers out of spite or hatred. Put them in a cell and treat them as we treat our own inmates. That care should be independent of what the other side is doing. Torturing their grunts in no way aides our cause. That would take us down to their level.
They shoot at us and kill our soldiers, we shoot back and kill theirs. That makes us no better than them either, but I suppose we'll keep shooting.
I stand by my initial stance. Torture is wrong. :snooty:
:ermm:
Rat Faced
11-20-2005, 12:41 AM
I stand by my initial stance. Torture is wrong. :snooty:
I concur.
I do believe that the current "reason" for the invasion was because Hussain used this... kettle/black :snooty:
Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.
Busyman
11-22-2005, 10:44 PM
Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.
Anyone who believes torture is new (or secret imprisonment) is an idiot. I'm sure America didn't just start doing it.
Again the bandwagon hypemobole is in full force. Some photos from Abu Grabass prison "surface" and people that that type of behavior "just started".:lol: :lol:
Agrajag
11-23-2005, 12:23 AM
Anyone who believes torture is new (or secret imprisonment) is an idiot. I'm sure America didn't just start doing it.
Again the bandwagon hypemobole is in full force. Some photos from Abu Grabass prison "surface" and people that that type of behavior "just started".:lol: :lol:
That's OK well, if it's been going on for a while.
Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.
What of the fact the Geneva Conventions were a charter for nations involved in war, and the inconvenient (for us, convenient for them) circumstance that Al Qaeda doesn't fit the mold?
Why shouldn't we, instead of hewing to or ignoring the Geneva Conventions, concoct a document tailored to terrorists?
Authorship could be left to the U.N.
Should be good for a larf or two...
hobbes
11-23-2005, 02:16 AM
Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.
I think that the issue boils down to the actual impact of this petition.
Will it prevent what happened at Abu Garab? No, that was already illegal.
Most of us scoff at it as a politicians game.
Being opposed to laws which prevent torture without exception does not mean one is "pro-torture" similar to people who are against anti-abortion laws are not pro-abortion.
Certain situations merit certain actions, which my conscience has no problem with, as I have given examples for in this thread.
I don't want absolute rules about when and where to torture, I just want our military leaders to be given the latitude to use the appropriate force necessary and for this to be at their discretion.
I think the Geneva Convention was a fine way for how to provide accomadation for the average soldier. It gives piece of mind to families, on both sides, that their sons are not in tiny cages being starved and beaten as a routine.
Nobody has any problem recognizing that Abu Garab was unacceptable and it wasn't the "rules" which permitted this, it was enforcement of the rules.
Torture, as I have defined in specific cases, will always occur, no matter the country, no matter the law.
We all have a gestalt of what is appropriate or defensible.
If we approve legislature that says "no" to torture, no exceptions, then the man who saves his fellow soldiers by inflicting pain on a suicide bomber to defuse his weapon has to deal with war crimes charges.
War presents unique opportunities, every country and it's citizens have a threshold which dictates what actions are defensible and which are inacceptable.
Why support something that is just a political game, that will tied the hands of those who need to get things done, perhaps in a way we don't want to think about.
So much is done by our countries by our sectret services, for the sake of our futures, that we don't know about. We have a sense something is going on, but we don't really want to know, lest we have to admit to our sins.
The US has placed many South American dictators in charge in the last century, that have been just as bad as Saddam. All countries are selfishly and cruelly looking out for themselves, we all know this, but pretend not to, just to think we are somehow civilized and clean.
Being "civilized" is a complete joke. Strip any man of those things he takes for granted- food, clothing, shelter, security and you will see the true animal bare his fangs.
There is nothing civilized about man, that is just an act we portray when we our basic needs are satisfied.
Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.
Busyman
11-23-2005, 01:36 PM
Anyone who believes torture is new (or secret imprisonment) is an idiot. I'm sure America didn't just start doing it.
Again the bandwagon hypemobole is in full force. Some photos from Abu Grabass prison "surface" and people that that type of behavior "just started".:lol: :lol:
That's OK well, if it's been going on for a while.
Fact of life.
Agrajag
11-23-2005, 03:44 PM
That's OK well, if it's been going on for a while.
Fact of life.
So are poverty and slavery. Let's try to stop them as well.
Agrajag
11-23-2005, 03:57 PM
Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Busyman
11-23-2005, 04:08 PM
Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.
I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.
You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.
Agrajag
11-23-2005, 04:26 PM
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.
I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.
There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.
The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.
Busyman
11-23-2005, 07:53 PM
Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.
I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.
There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.
The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.
When is torture necessary?:huh:
Rat Faced
11-23-2005, 09:18 PM
Never
Its counter-productive.
You hear what the guy getting tortured thinks u want to hear, so the pain stops.
He will say he's guilty, even if he's innocent... and give "intelligence" that is just as useful.
Agrajag
11-23-2005, 09:33 PM
There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.
The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.
When is torture necessary?:huh:
You tell me, it's you that's saying it's necessary, not me.
hobbes
11-23-2005, 11:14 PM
Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread. I suppose the Scottish chaps just like to make sweeping generalizations without proper statistical data.:wacko:
Be assured that torture is actively practiced by all governments in times of conflict, despite what you have on your piece of paper.
Our example:
You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.
What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.
Please answer this very specific question, which you have avoided about 5 or 6 times now.
Busyman
11-23-2005, 11:20 PM
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread. I suppose the Scottish chaps just like to make sweeping generalizations without proper statistical data.:wacko:
Be assured that torture is actively practiced by all governments in times of conflict, despite what you have on your piece of paper.
Our example:
You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.
What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.
Please answer this very specific question, which you have avoided about 5 or 6 times now.
You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.
Both Rat and JP know sometimes it is necessary. It's the dirty little fact of life that puts them in denial.
Busyman
11-23-2005, 11:22 PM
Fact of life.
So are poverty and slavery. Let's try to stop them as well.
We do not have to resort to poverty or slavery in a time of crisis.:dry:
I can see instances where one would have to resort to torture.
Agrajag
11-23-2005, 11:24 PM
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread.
It's more to do with the fact that your Govt will not legislate agains torture. They will not preclude it's use, when required. Whereas the EU specifically bans it's use and goes to the bother of saying that it is not allowed, even in times of national crisis.
Your Govt says that it is bad, but sometimes we might have to do it. The EU says that it is bad and that there is no circumstance where it is acceptable.
I think most people can see the difference.
Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.
Busyman
11-23-2005, 11:24 PM
Never
Its counter-productive.
You hear what the guy getting tortured thinks u want to hear, so the pain stops.
He will say he's guilty, even if he's innocent... and give "intelligence" that is just as useful.
Ohhh Rat....that's so sweeping. Are you saying now that torture never works?:lol: :lol:
Agrajag
11-23-2005, 11:26 PM
Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread. I suppose the Scottish chaps just like to make sweeping generalizations without proper statistical data.:wacko:
Be assured that torture is actively practiced by all governments in times of conflict, despite what you have on your piece of paper.
Our example:
You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.
What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.
Please answer this very specific question, which you have avoided about 5 or 6 times now.
You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.
Both Rat and JP know sometimes it is necessary. It's the dirty little fact of life that puts them in denial.
The fact that you see torture as necessary speaks volumes about you, not other people.
Agrajag
11-23-2005, 11:28 PM
So are poverty and slavery. Let's try to stop them as well.
We do not have to resort to poverty or slavery in a time of crisis.:dry:
However they are facts of life, which is your "justification" for torture.
HeavyMetalParkingLot
11-23-2005, 11:31 PM
Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread.
It's more to do with the fact that your Govt will not legislate agains torture. They will not preclude it's use, when required. Whereas the EU specifically bans it's use and goes to the bother of saying that it is not allowed, even in times of national crisis.
Your Govt says that it is bad, but sometimes we might have to do it. The EU says that it is bad and that there is no circumstance where it is acceptable.
I think most people can see the difference.
Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.
It's a good thing EU politicians would never lie!
Like when they say the same thing about slavery, yet the UK is a human trafficing hub for the world.
hobbes
11-23-2005, 11:33 PM
Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.
No, it is the head on head collision of philsophy with reality. It is testing the limits of a statement.
It is like saying that abortion is wrong. Then realizing special circumstances such as rape or when the pregnancy will cause complications that will mean the death of the mother.
I created for you a scenario which you refuse to answer. Please answer it. You are not in your comfy home, telling interweb people how they should act, but in the battlefield, in the above scenario.
Ready, action!
Busyman
11-23-2005, 11:33 PM
We do not have to resort to poverty or slavery in a time of crisis.:dry:
However they are facts of life, which is your "justification" for torture.
They sure aren't necessary.:ermm:
Busyman
11-23-2005, 11:37 PM
Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.
No, it is the head on head collision of philsophy with reality. It is testing the limits of a statement.
It is like saying that abortion is wrong. Then realizing special circumstances such as rape or when the pregnancy will cause complications that will mean the death of the mother.
I created for you a scenario which you refuse to answer. Please answer it. You are not in you comfy home telling interweb people how they should act, but in the battlefield, in the above scenario.
Ready, action!
He never answered the question about abortion that I posed ages ago.
An aside..
If abortion is wrong then in cases of rape or incest, abortion is still wrong 'cause you are killing a child.
Actually I have it wrong as far as him answering. JP answered that stuff like that has to be taken on case by case basis.........
Busyman
11-23-2005, 11:41 PM
You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.
Both Rat and JP know sometimes it is necessary. It's the dirty little fact of life that puts them in denial.
The fact that you see torture as necessary speaks volumes about you, not other people.
It's not necessary all the time.
It would have to go on a case by case basis.
:ermm:
What speaks volumes is that when it comes down to it, you would curl up and die and allow your children to die (and your wife and friends).
I would not.
The problem that I see regarding torture is that I think governments sometimes have a low justification for it.
Agrajag
11-23-2005, 11:43 PM
Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.
No, it is the head on head collision of philsophy with reality. It is testing the limits of a statement.
It is like saying that abortion is wrong. Then realizing special circumstances such as rape or when the pregnancy will cause complications that will mean the death of the mother.
I created for you a scenario which you refuse to answer. Please answer it. You are not in your comfy home, telling interweb people how they should act, but in the battlefield, in the above scenario.
Ready, action!
I am in my comfy home, as it happens. However I am not telling anyone how they should act. I am expressing my opinion on what is right and what is wrong.
Your argument is still no more sophisticated than "the end justifies the means" and well you know it.
hobbes
11-24-2005, 12:01 AM
I am in my comfy home, as it happens. However I am not telling anyone how they should act. I am expressing my opinion on what is right and what is wrong.
Your argument is still no more sophisticated than "the end justifies the means" and well you know it.
On the contrary, I have been attempting to point out that this is not the case.
Lets make the point crystal clear in that the enemy will not be detonating a bomb, but releasing a powerful nerve gas which will painfully kill your fellow soldiers.
On one hand your have the rights of the enemy not to be tortured, on the other you have the rights of your soldiers not to be tortured.
On must simply make a choice.
You may either violate the rights of your enemy, who is actively attempting to torture, or violate the rights of your fellow soldiers as you watch them suffer.
To me this is equivalent to favoring abortion when the pregnancy will cause the death of the Mother. A choice must be made.
Special circumstances, case by case scenarios, that's what I'm talking about when I say, "I can envision unique circumstances arising in the setting of war in which I could see a justification for torture". It is not a popular thing to say, but I call them as I see them.
Agrajag
11-24-2005, 12:07 AM
I am in my comfy home, as it happens. However I am not telling anyone how they should act. I am expressing my opinion on what is right and what is wrong.
Your argument is still no more sophisticated than "the end justifies the means" and well you know it.
On the contrary, I have been attempting to point out that this is not the case.
Lets make the point crystal clear in that the enemy will not be detonating a bomb, but releasing a powerful nerve gas which will painfully kill your fellow soldiers.
On one hand your have the rights of the enemy not to be tortured, on the other you have the rights of your soldiers not to be tortured.
On must simply make a choice.
You may either violate the rights of your enemy, who is actively attempting to torture, or violate the rights of your fellow soldiers as you watch them suffer.
To me this is equivalent to favoring abortion when the pregnancy will cause the death of the Mother. A choice must be made.
Special circumstances, case by case scenarios, that's what I'm talking about when I say, "I can envision unique circumstances arising in the setting of war in which I could see a justification for torture". It is not a popular thing to say, but I call them as I see them.
Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.
Busyman
11-24-2005, 12:08 AM
On the contrary, I have been attempting to point out that this is not the case.
Lets make the point crystal clear in that the enemy will not be detonating a bomb, but releasing a powerful nerve gas which will painfully kill your fellow soldiers.
On one hand your have the rights of the enemy not to be tortured, on the other you have the rights of your soldiers not to be tortured.
On must simply make a choice.
You may either violate the rights of your enemy, who is actively attempting to torture, or violate the rights of your fellow soldiers as you watch them suffer.
To me this is equivalent to favoring abortion when the pregnancy will cause the death of the Mother. A choice must be made.
Special circumstances, case by case scenarios, that's what I'm talking about when I say, "I can envision unique circumstances arising in the setting of war in which I could see a justification for torture". It is not a popular thing to say, but I call them as I see them.
Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.
Sometimes it does.
Agrajag
11-24-2005, 12:10 AM
Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.
Sometimes it does.
At least you admit that you feel that way.
Busyman
11-24-2005, 12:15 AM
Sometimes it does.
At least you admit that you feel that way.
CaptainObvious.
You gotta take things on a case by case basis.
Torturing an offender to give me the combination or whateverthefuck to save my wife and kids from imminent danger is a no-brainer for me.
The end - my wife and kids are alive. The means - torture
Torturing some fella for the combination to a million dollars is despicable.
The end - I'm reeeotch, beeotch. The means - torture
Agrajag
11-24-2005, 12:18 AM
At least you admit that you feel that way.
CaptainObvious.
You gotta take things on a case by case basis.
Torturing an offender to give me the combination or whateverthefuck to save my wife and kids from imminent danger is a no-brainer for me.
The end - my wife and kids are alive. The means - torture
Torturing some fella for the combination to a million dollars is despicable.
The end - I'm reeeotch, beeotch. The means - torture
WWJD
CaptainObvious.
You gotta take things on a case by case basis.
Torturing an offender to give me the combination or whateverthefuck to save my wife and kids from imminent danger is a no-brainer for me.
The end - my wife and kids are alive. The means - torture
Torturing some fella for the combination to a million dollars is despicable.
The end - I'm reeeotch, beeotch. The means - torture
WWJD
A very good question, that.
To continue, what would your reaction be should you discover that your government (a signatory to the non-torture/human-rights instrument you have quoted) has indeed engaged in torture of purported participants in an imminent terrorist act?
I guess what I'm asking is whether (from your comfy home) you could consider for us the possibility that merely thinking a course of action correct (which quality may even be philosophically provable) does not preclude a human failure and departure from the desired behavior?
Would you be just, like, totally destroyed, and have to move to Canada?
And what about the drugs, BTW?
If there were no ill-effect, that is...
hobbes
11-24-2005, 12:45 AM
[QUOTE=hobbes]
Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.
No a choice has to made. Whether you do it by acting or not acting, a choice is made.
What is with this "end justifies the means" obsession. Did you read this in a nice little book and decide that it was some absolute truth which had no exception. Seems to me, it, like any piece of sound advice, at some point it breaks down.
Seems to me you just keep repeating it like some Tourettian mantra and just as the Tourettes' child can do amazingly quick math calculations, in application of this to the real world, he can't even figure our how much a candy bar costs.
Philosophy/ reality must at some point meet.
Agrajag
11-24-2005, 12:54 AM
What is with this "end justifies the means" obsession.
I think it's a glib thing.
I just don't believe that torture is OK, sometimes.
Which is the substance of your argument.
hobbes
11-24-2005, 12:59 AM
What is with this "end justifies the means" obsession.
I think it's a glib thing.
I just don't believe that torture is OK, sometimes.
Which is the substance of your argument.
So you let those people die?
Yes/No.
Agrajag
11-24-2005, 01:16 AM
I think it's a glib thing.
I just don't believe that torture is OK, sometimes.
Which is the substance of your argument.
So you let those people die?
Yes/No.
Still the same argument "the end justifies the means.".
If that's OK with you, cool.
Rat Faced
11-24-2005, 04:49 PM
Never
Its counter-productive.
You hear what the guy getting tortured thinks u want to hear, so the pain stops.
He will say he's guilty, even if he's innocent... and give "intelligence" that is just as useful.
Ohhh Rat....that's so sweeping. Are you saying now that torture never works?:lol: :lol:
I never said that.
I said it was counter productive and causes more problems than it solves.
You act on "intelligence" that is false, then dig yourself into a deeper hole that "requires" more torture. You will not know if the intelligence is false until you act upon it.
Its a vicious circle with a lot of innocents gettng hurt, and creating more enemies.
There have been numerous cases where people have been "caught" specifically so they can be tortured and give false information, to lead the enemy into a trap of some sort.
I agree however, all Intelligence Agencies use it.. however illegal it is in their particular country. They always have, and always will.
However there are surer means of getting the information.
Torture is quick, but the intelligence is shaky at best.
Drugs/Brainwashing/Psychology/Hypnosis and combinations of these methods are sure... but a lot slower, and require skill in their use so there are a lot fewer people that can actually do it properly.
Im not saying this is "right" and "moral" either.. just stating facts.
The only reason Torture has been exposed was due to the shear numbers of suspects they needed to "question", the vast majority of which were innocent of any crime. They cant let them go now though... as their treatment has ensured that the 1st thing they do now will be to join the insurgents. Way to go.
As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?
Would you trust the numbers he gave you?
Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.
The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.
With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.
hobbes
11-24-2005, 06:20 PM
As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?
Would you trust the numbers he gave you?
Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.
The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.
With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.
Rat, I created a hypothetical scenario.
You have chosen to nitpick the actual mechanisms of how might unfold.
We have a robot that is going to go over to the keypad and punch the numbers. You assure the prisoner that the torture will continue for the weeks and monthe to follow if the bomb goes off.
I would torture that person to save the lives of those in the building, would you?
Yes/No.
Busyman
11-24-2005, 06:42 PM
Ohhh Rat....that's so sweeping. Are you saying now that torture never works?:lol: :lol:
I never said that.
I said it was counter productive and causes more problems than it solves.
You act on "intelligence" that is false, then dig yourself into a deeper hole that "requires" more torture. You will not know if the intelligence is false until you act upon it.
Its a vicious circle with a lot of innocents gettng hurt, and creating more enemies.
There have been numerous cases where people have been "caught" specifically so they can be tortured and give false information, to lead the enemy into a trap of some sort.
I agree however, all Intelligence Agencies use it.. however illegal it is in their particular country. They always have, and always will.
However there are surer means of getting the information.
Torture is quick, but the intelligence is shaky at best.
Drugs/Brainwashing/Psychology/Hypnosis and combinations of these methods are sure... but a lot slower, and require skill in their use so there are a lot fewer people that can actually do it properly.
Im not saying this is "right" and "moral" either.. just stating facts.
The only reason Torture has been exposed was due to the shear numbers of suspects they needed to "question", the vast majority of which were innocent of any crime. They cant let them go now though... as their treatment has ensured that the 1st thing they do now will be to join the insurgents. Way to go.
As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?
Would you trust the numbers he gave you?
Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.
The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.
With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.
Good lord, I don't advocate mass torture to possibly come up with a tidbit of nothing.
I know some scenarios where I can see using it. It's a last resort type thang ya see.
The thing is there are a number of scenarios that are considered torture and I disagree with that.
NOT feeding a prisoner properly springs to mind.
As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?
Would you trust the numbers he gave you?
Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.
The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.
With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.
Rat, I created a hypothetical scenario.
You have chosen to nitpick the actual mechanisms of how might unfold.
We have a robot that is going to go over to the keypad and punch the numbers. You assure the prisoner that the torture will continue for the weeks and monthe to follow if the bomb goes off.
I would torture that person to save the lives of those in the building, would you?
Yes/No.
Actually he has simply pointed out what is woefully obvious, if someone doesn't want to give you info and yet you force them to talk, chances are they are going to lie. Its not rocket science.
In the scenario you gave it also strikes me as unlikely that you would know who the bomber is (i rather doubt you'd be waiting till a trial has been carried out) so basically you're not only suggesting torture, but also presumption of guilt. Chances are you'd have a list of suspects, most of whom are innocent of this particular crime. How many would you willingly torture to get an answer?
Busy, if it was your family then obviously theres nothing you wouldn't consider, but its like the death penalty argument (ie you would want to kill someone who had murdered a family member) we're talking about what the state will allow and will carry out and the argument is therefore about what fairly impassionate and uninvolved people should be doing.
Would you be ok with torturing americans on the mainland US?
Legitimising torture is basically the same as popularising it.
edit: 1/2 the quote was missing
Rat Faced
11-24-2005, 08:20 PM
As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?
Would you trust the numbers he gave you?
Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.
The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.
With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.
Rat, I created a hypothetical scenario.
You have chosen to nitpick the actual mechanisms of how might unfold.
We have a robot that is going to go over to the keypad and punch the numbers. You assure the prisoner that the torture will continue for the weeks and monthe to follow if the bomb goes off.
I would torture that person to save the lives of those in the building, would you?
Yes/No.
No.
Even if my kids were in there. In fact i'd be LESS likely to use torture if they were.
The only time torture can give reliable intelligence of any sort is when enough people are being "interrogated" that a pattern emerges. How many people have you interrogated before seeing a pattern?
How many were innocent, or at least neutral, until you turned them into enemies?
And the again the moral issue... the terrorist, in his mind, is acting for the best in the long run, even if you dont agree with him. He is justifying the end with the means.
What gives you the arrogance to think your right when using the same tecniques that you condemn in them?
In addition.. once you have a reputation for using those methods, it is very hard to get rid of that reputation and mistrust.
Just look at our countries now to see this as fact.
How many years sinse slavery was abolished? And yet the whole of the western world is still living with the distrust and sometimes hatred between races on that one issue.
Turkey used to have a horrendous record on Human Rights. It is infinitely better than it was, and yet its neighbours still distrust it and will for years. Hell, they cant even get into the EU... even Cyprus (which isnt recognised as a country by some EU members) managed that, as did a fair few Eastern European countries.
hobbes
11-24-2005, 08:21 PM
Rat, I created a hypothetical scenario.
You have chosen to nitpick the actual mechanisms of how might unfold.
We have a robot that is going to go over to the keypad and punch the numbers. You assure the prisoner that the torture will continue for the weeks and monthe to follow if the bomb goes off.
I would torture that person to save the lives of those in the building, would you?
Yes/No.
Actually he has simply pointed out what is woefully obvious, if someone doesn't want to give you info and yet you force them to talk, chances are they are going to lie. Its not rocket science.
In the scenario you gave it also strikes me as unlikely that you would know who the bomber is (i rather doubt you'd be waiting till a trial has been carried out) so basically you're not only suggesting torture, but also presumption of guilt. Chances are you'd have a list of suspects, most of whom are innocent of this particular crime. How many would you willingly torture to get an answer?
What could possibly be woefully and obviously lacking in a hypothetical scenario? It is a mental excercise to test a point. Got it?
You have a situation, and you must make a decision.
What can you live with? These guys about to die are the ones you have fought with, shit with, bonded with since boot camp. You caught the guy who planted the bomb. That bomb is going to go off.
Do you want your Sargent to tell you that if you so much as touch your prisioner you will get Court Martialed and jailed or do want the option to do what you can to save the people you have sworn to protect.
I torture and save my men. Torture is a last option and one that should be left to the people in charge as a judgement call. A judgement they should be required to defend, as I have this one.
You never know what situations may arise in a war zone and what decisions may need to be made. I have created an example of such a situation and have stated that "no torture, no exceptions" doesn't work for me.
I take exception to the the no exception rule.
The only thing that motivates a man who is anxious to die, is not letting him do so and letting him feel very much alive, through pain.
Yes/no.
Rat Faced
11-24-2005, 08:36 PM
No Hobbes,
your talking of beating the crap out of someone, not torture.
I think everyone has felt like that occasionally, and quite frankly given your example, so would i.
Whilst it would yield little in the way of intelligence, it would make me feel better. That doesnt make it right.
Torture is a skill, not beating the shit out of someone.
Im sure you know this, as you do know your history... Torturers were not your run of the mill thugs, and still aren't. They must apply just the right amount of pain that the subject doesnt lose consiousness.. If you know exactly how to do this, then you scare me.
I'd say that 99% of trained soldiers couldnt. (excluding special forces)
What could possibly be woefully and obviously lacking in a hypothetical scenario? It is a mental excercise to test a point. Got it?
Realism is lacking. You talk as though its a trade off between one persons pain and the lives of your friends which is a simple trade off for anyone to make, whereas in actual fact its much more likely that your friends are toast either way.
If it was guaranteed to work then yes, if its reality then i think i'd try and disarm without the intel as its just as likely to work.
Say it works and you save the lives of your friends, i still say you should face prosecution.
Rat Faced
11-24-2005, 08:59 PM
And if we just beat the crap out of him (as i said, i probably would)... we should also face prosecution, and hope the extenuating cirumstances defence holds up. :ph34r:
hobbes
11-24-2005, 09:52 PM
What could possibly be woefully and obviously lacking in a hypothetical scenario? It is a mental excercise to test a point. Got it?
Realism is lacking. You talk as though its a trade off between one persons pain and the lives of your friends which is a simple trade off for anyone to make, whereas in actual fact its much more likely that your friends are toast either way.
If it was guaranteed to work then yes, if its reality then i think i'd try and disarm without the intel as its just as likely to work.
Say it works and you save the lives of your friends, i still say you should face prosecution.
ILW,
I apologise for my hypothetical situation lacking reality.:dry: At least I did not require alien intervention.:ph34r:
The purpose of the excercise is to reduce your variables to this simplest possible scenario and determine what you would do.
To me, the fact that the "no exception rule" exists wouldn't slow my decision to act one bit. I would do it everytime.
As with Abu Garab, we already have enough laws in place to find those people guilty of war crimes.
So this petition is just a political game to me, it won't change how people act and that was my point.
Rat,
I think we are in agreement for the most part. I have taken the tack that a society must come up with a set of rules that it can live by in good conscience. Don't starve, don't shackle, don't injure out of spite or hatred. you took more of the tack, that it doesn't work anyway.
I just think that in special circumstances I may very see it as a defensible option and give it a try. I created one scenario, but I am sure there are many others. It is a case by case thing. Judgement (the ability to defend ones act) by those in charge dictate what is done.
Incidentally, what is the difference between beating crap out of someone and torture (read this as an honest interest as to why you would make the distinction, not a jab). Now in our case, I want to be clear that I'm not doing this to let of steam or out of hate or spite, but on the off chance his human frailty will allow me to save my men.
Rat, another question for you, just to enter the gray zone a bit.
If you go missing, and as your best mate, I capture an enemy soldier who has your wallet and dog tags in his pockets. On interrogation he has no information, but I notice that he is wearing your socks. What should I do, what would you like me to do.
Rat Faced
11-24-2005, 10:36 PM
There is a difference between torture and beating the crap out of someone on the spur of the moment in my opinion... although i know its not legally.
Torture is the planned and/or sustained infliction of pain, mental torment or deprivation on someone.
Beating the shit can happen unplanned and because of a momentary loss of control.
Like i said, i do not condone either... i'd be guilty of the 2nd in certain circumstances myself, and would expect to be prosecuted if caught.
In the circumstances you outline, i could totally understand the latter course of action... id do the same. The former however, would make you sub-human in my eyes. I would class you as the same type of bastard.
hobbes
11-24-2005, 10:53 PM
There is a difference between torture and beating the crap out of someone on the spur of the moment in my opinion... although i know its not legally.
Torture is the planned and/or sustained infliction of pain, mental torment or deprivation on someone.
Beating the shit can happen unplanned and because of a momentary loss of control.
Like i said, i do not condone either... i'd be guilty of the 2nd in certain circumstances myself, and would expect to be prosecuted if caught.
In the circumstances you outline, i could totally understand the latter course of action... id do the same. The former however, would make you sub-human in my eyes. I would class you as the same type of bastard.
fair enough.
Rat Faced
11-24-2005, 11:09 PM
There is a difference between torture and beating the crap out of someone on the spur of the moment in my opinion... although i know its not legally.
Torture is the planned and/or sustained infliction of pain, mental torment or deprivation on someone.
Beating the shit can happen unplanned and because of a momentary loss of control.
Like i said, i do not condone either... i'd be guilty of the 2nd in certain circumstances myself, and would expect to be prosecuted if caught.
In the circumstances you outline, i could totally understand the latter course of action... id do the same. The former however, would make you sub-human in my eyes. I would class you as the same type of bastard.
fair enough.
On further consideration...
As id probably be dead, i wouldnt think the worse of you :P
Ok, here's the rub.
You've caught the wrong guy, and to stop the pain of the torture he'll tell you anything. Of course, it isn't true so when you act on his information you blow up your kids.
Alternatively, you've caught the right guy. If he gives you the right information under torture, he can expect more of the same since the same justification about saving lives will be used to get the info on his accomplices. The only way he can be certain of stopping the torture is to give you wrong information. But you assume it is correct so when you act on his information you blow up your kids.
Apart from any moral and legal considerations anyone may have, torture does not work. The sooner you dimwits realise that the safer we'll all be.
hobbes
11-25-2005, 03:08 PM
Ok, here's the rub.
You've caught the wrong guy, and to stop the pain of the torture he'll tell you anything. Of course, it isn't true so when you act on his information you blow up your kids.
Alternatively, you've caught the right guy. If he gives you the right information under torture, he can expect more of the same since the same justification about saving lives will be used to get the info on his accomplices. The only way he can be certain of stopping the torture is to give you wrong information. But you assume it is correct so when you act on his information you blow up your kids.
Apart from any moral and legal considerations anyone may have, torture does not work. The sooner you dimwits realise that the safer we'll all be.
Torture would work on me, I will admit to that straight up.
The flaw in your rub is that I specifically stated that I caught him planting the bomb and I specifically counselled him that if his bomb goes off, he will be tortured for the weeks and months to come.
Defusing his bomb is the ONLY way his torture will stop.
In addition, what have you got to lose, particularly in the case of the decapitating insurgents. You treat him nice, they cut your head off, you torture his ass, they cut your head off.
Those trapped people are dead, torture is their only possible salvation.
As for this calculated logic about what he will or will not do, that is the whole point of excruciating pain. It makes logic seem irrelevant.
You people can't handle the truth.:ph34r:
Torture can work.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 05:36 PM
Ok, here's the rub.
You've caught the wrong guy, and to stop the pain of the torture he'll tell you anything. Of course, it isn't true so when you act on his information you blow up your kids.
Alternatively, you've caught the right guy. If he gives you the right information under torture, he can expect more of the same since the same justification about saving lives will be used to get the info on his accomplices. The only way he can be certain of stopping the torture is to give you wrong information. But you assume it is correct so when you act on his information you blow up your kids.
Apart from any moral and legal considerations anyone may have, torture does not work. The sooner you dimwits realise that the safer we'll all be.
Well guess what, you are a dipshit to say torture NEVER works.
When I was younger, I personally knocked a fella around until he gave up what he took out of my house.
I understand the morality bit regarding torture. It denotes a certain vigilantism and lawlessness that no one wants to condone and see run rampant.
However, dipshit, to say torture NEVER works is like saying threats NEVER work and the moral high ground you currently take is separating you from reality.:dry:
==========
I like what Rat says where a person may save his crewmen but still be subject to prosecution.
The circumstances should be left to courts and not an automatic Get Out Of Jail Free card. I believe that many governments torture unnecessarily in MOST cases. I will never say that it's never necessary, however.
Agrajag
11-25-2005, 05:38 PM
"I believe that many governments torture unnecessarily in MOST cases."
Who decides when it's necessary tho'.
You decide when it's necessary for you, do other people decide when it's necessary for them.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 05:41 PM
"I believe that many governments torture unnecessarily in MOST cases."
Who decides when it's necessary tho'.
You decide when it's necessary for you, do other people decide when it's necessary for them.
Well that's a dumb question (with no ?).
Agrajag
11-25-2005, 05:42 PM
As for this calculated logic about what he will or will not do, that is the whole point of excruciating pain. It makes logic seem irrelevant.
So it's excruciating pain you're going for then. Well I s'pose if you're going to torture you're as well going the whole hog.
How was Thanksgiving btw, did you have a nice time.
Agrajag
11-25-2005, 05:44 PM
"I believe that many governments torture unnecessarily in MOST cases."
Who decides when it's necessary tho'.
You decide when it's necessary for you, do other people decide when it's necessary for them.
Well that's a dumb question (with no ?).
Sorry, I don't understand.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 05:47 PM
Well that's a dumb question (with no ?).
Sorry, I don't understand.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
CaptainObvious.
Agrajag
11-25-2005, 05:51 PM
Sorry, I don't understand.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
CaptainObvious.
I didn't understand what you said, so I said so. How is that :lol: :lol: :lol:
hobbes
11-25-2005, 05:59 PM
As for this calculated logic about what he will or will not do, that is the whole point of excruciating pain. It makes logic seem irrelevant.
So it's excruciating pain you're going for then. Well I s'pose if you're going to torture you're as well going the whole hog.
How was Thanksgiving btw, did you have a nice time.
Smashing success. I hooked electrodes up the turkeys' naughty bits and electrocuted the sucker to medium well.
I laughed hysterically the entire time.
The children were surprisingly well behaved
Busyman
11-25-2005, 06:02 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol:
CaptainObvious.
I didn't understand what you said, so I said so. How is that :lol: :lol: :lol:
Smashing!!!:O
Agrajag
11-25-2005, 06:41 PM
So it's excruciating pain you're going for then. Well I s'pose if you're going to torture you're as well going the whole hog.
How was Thanksgiving btw, did you have a nice time.
Smashing success. I hooked electrodes up the turkeys' naughty bits and electrocuted the sucker to medium well.
I laughed hysterically the entire time.
The children were surprisingly well behaved
Was the laugh maniacal at all.
Glad you had a good time.
Cheese
11-25-2005, 06:45 PM
I didn't understand what you said, so I said so. How is that :lol: :lol: :lol: Smashing!!!:O
You will have 5000 posts in no time.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 06:47 PM
Smashing!!!:O
You will have 5000 posts in no time.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 9,535
Thanks anyway....:ermm:
Cheese
11-25-2005, 06:49 PM
You will have 5000 posts in no time. Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 9,535
Thanks anyway....:ermm:
Looking at some of your "posts" in this thread I can see why. Stop spamming, cunt.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 06:56 PM
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 9,535
Thanks anyway....:ermm:
Looking at some of your "posts" in this thread I can see why. Stop spamming, cunt.
Fuck you. Go back to the Lounge with your insults.
hobbes
11-25-2005, 06:58 PM
Smashing success. I hooked electrodes up the turkeys' naughty bits and electrocuted the sucker to medium well.
I laughed hysterically the entire time.
The children were surprisingly well behaved
Was the laugh maniacal at all.
Glad you had a good time.
I wouldn't say maniacal, not at all, but I do have to admit to a bit of a funny story.
After the feast had been prepared and consumed, my buzz started to wear off and I realized that I didn't know any of the people there and either my furniture had been re-arranged and replaced or I wasn't in my own house.
Fortunately, they a ride home for me pulling into the driveway just as the meal ended.
My chauffer informed me that I had "the right to remain silent".
Cheese
11-25-2005, 06:58 PM
Looking at some of your "posts" in this thread I can see why. Stop spamming, cunt. Fuck you. Go back to the Lounge with your insults.
That's pretty rich coming from someone who resorted to calling someone else a "dipshit" in this very thread. Fucking hypocrit.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 07:05 PM
Fuck you. Go back to the Lounge with your insults.
That's pretty rich coming from someone who resorted to calling someone else a "dipshit" in this very thread. Fucking hypocrit.
Very interesting.
You came in here to NOT participate in this discussion and also ignore that a mod made an insult (which I have no problem with...the mod that is).
Did you have something else meaningful to say or should you be dismissed?
You came in here just to insult and have shit to say.
Agrajag
11-25-2005, 07:06 PM
Was the laugh maniacal at all.
Glad you had a good time.
I wouldn't say maniacal, not at all, but I do have to admit to a bit of a funny story.
After the feast had been prepared and consumed, my buzz started to wear off and I realized that I didn't know any of the people there and either my furniture had been re-arranged and replaced or I wasn't in my own house.
Fortunately, they a ride home for me pulling into the driveway just as the meal ended.
My chauffer informed me that I had "the right to remain silent".
You had Thanksgiving dinner in someone elses house and no-one, yourself included, noticed. You're having a larf.
Cheese
11-25-2005, 07:07 PM
That's pretty rich coming from someone who resorted to calling someone else a "dipshit" in this very thread. Fucking hypocrit. Very interesting.
You came in here to NOT participate in this discussion and also ignore that a mod made an insult (which I have no problem with...the mod that is).
Did you have something else meaningful to say or should you be dismissed?
You came in here just to insult and have shit say.
Die.
manker
11-25-2005, 07:17 PM
It's okay for Busy to make a comment, exactly the same comment multiple times about the 'spammer' reaching 5000 posts in no time, when people spam in MovieWorld.
It's not okay for Chebus to make the same comment in an ironic manner when Busy spams here.
Use logic or stfu :dabs:
Cheese
11-25-2005, 07:20 PM
Sorry, I should apologize to the rest of the board for my own spamming of this thread. Please delete my posts and Busyman.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 07:58 PM
It's okay for Busy to make a comment, exactly the same comment multiple times about the 'spammer' reaching 5000 posts in no time, when people spam in MovieWorld.
It's not okay for Chebus to make the same comment in an ironic manner when Busy spams here.
Use logic or stfu :dabs:
Damn dude if you are going to pile on (once again), do it properly. I had no problems with Cheese making the "5000 posts comment".
After that though, he seemed to want to just to be shithead....all from a person who doesn't frequent here.
Furthermore, if every single short post among the myraid of longer posts posts (in the same thread ffs) is considered spam then you guys need to USE LOGIC OR STFU.
Do ya sit back and wait for a one word post by me or what?:ermm: I was short of the 500 words in my essay, jeez.
Get off my nuts...again.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 08:01 PM
Sorry, I should apologize to the rest of the board for my own spamming of this thread.
'Cause that's what it really comes down to.
After your initial FIRST post in this thread (which I thought was quite funny) you started being a fuckwit.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 08:19 PM
CaptainObvious.
You gotta take things on a case by case basis.
Torturing an offender to give me the combination or whateverthefuck to save my wife and kids from imminent danger is a no-brainer for me.
The end - my wife and kids are alive. The means - torture
Torturing some fella for the combination to a million dollars is despicable.
The end - I'm reeeotch, beeotch. The means - torture
WWJD
I missed this.
Tell me what would you do.
Agrajag
11-25-2005, 09:18 PM
Nah
The only arguments you have are.
1. The end justifies the means.
2. Other people do it, so we can as well.
The bottom line is that The EU does not allow torture, even if it is a matter of national security, we think that torture is wrong and cannot be justified. I believe the UN does as well. The US will not preclude the use of torture and they will be the ones who decide whether it is justified.
You cry foul when people in other parts of the World decide that they are justified in using torture, yet your own Govt says that it will retain the right to use it. You decry other countries for their human rights, but you will not remove your own "right" to torture. It's hypocritical and arrogant.
Torture is wrong, no matter what narrow specific scenario you decide to paint. All this heat of the moment, blood rushing to the head stuff is just specious. Everyone knows we are talking about the deliberate, systematic, torture of prisoners, who at that time are no danger to anyone. The fact that someone may protect their family, in a real heat of the moment, adrenaline filled situation is not even remotely analagous to a so called "civilized" country refusing to stop using torture.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 09:38 PM
Nah
The only arguments you have are.
1. The end justifies the means.
Uh huh, sometimes it does.
2. Other people do it, so we can as well.
Who said that?
The bottom line is that The EU does not allow torture, even if it is a matter of national security, we think that torture is wrong and cannot be justified. I believe the UN does as well. The US will not preclude the use of torture and they will be the ones who decide whether it is justified.
You cry foul when people in other parts of the World decide that they are justified in using torture, yet your own Govt says that it will retain the right to use it. You decry other countries for their human rights, but you will not remove your own "right" to torture. It's hypocritical and arrogant.
However what it comes down to is that all countries want to able to treat prisoners badly a la torture, if necessary, and don't want their countrymen, if prisoners of another country, treated badly.
Torture is wrong, no matter what narrow specific scenario you decide to paint. All this heat of the moment, blood rushing to the head stuff is just specious. Everyone knows we are talking about the deliberate, systematic, torture of prisoners, who at that time are no danger to anyone.
Mmk...
I believe that many governments torture unnecessarily in MOST cases. I will never say that it's never necessary, however.
The fact that someone may protect their family, in a real heat of the moment, adrenaline filled situation is not even remotely analagous to a so called "civilized" country refusing to stop using torture.
How does one protect by using torture?
Agrajag
11-25-2005, 09:44 PM
The fact that someone may protect their family, in a real heat of the moment, adrenaline filled situation is not even remotely analagous to a so called "civilized" country refusing to stop using torture.
How does one protect by using torture?
One doesn't, I didn't say one did.
I said protecting one's family is not analogous to torture. It is important that you read the word "not" to get the real meaning.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 10:28 PM
How does one protect by using torture?
One doesn't, I didn't say one did.
I said protecting one's family is not analogous to torture. It is important that you read the word "not" to get the real meaning.
I didn't say you did either.
I'll just say....it is important that you read "The fact that someone may protect their family" and understand why you decided to put that tidbit in there.
hobbes
11-25-2005, 10:34 PM
Nah
The only arguments you have are.
Torture is wrong, no matter what narrow specific scenario you decide to paint. All this heat of the moment, blood rushing to the head stuff is just specious. Everyone knows we are talking about the deliberate, systematic, torture of prisoners, who at that time are no danger to anyone. The fact that someone may protect their family, in a real heat of the moment, adrenaline filled situation is not even remotely analagous to a so called "civilized" country refusing to stop using torture.
I'm not really sure how my example was specious. Saying that something is specious seems a rather easy way to sweep an unpleasant reality away, without actually addressing it.
Given, of course, that all parties involved in this thread have given full throated condemnation of deliberate, systematic torture of prisoners, who at the time are no danger to anyone, I think we were focusing on exceptional situations and not even bothering with obvious impropriety.
Hell, we even have laws against that stuff.
The US government is reserving this right as it knows that torture is going to happen and doesn't want an external court trying US citizens.
And as we have recently witnessed in Iraq, both the US and UK soldiers were practicing torture, despite said laws being in place. Soldiers will be persecuted on both sides.
That is why have called this petition just political phish.
We have enough rules that instruct our soldiers to act in the proper manner.
We simply need to enforce our laws, not create new ones that serve no purpose.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 10:39 PM
Can someone tell me what constitutes "torture" in the eyes of the EU.
Agrajag
11-25-2005, 11:11 PM
The US government is reserving this right as it knows that torture is going to happen and doesn't want an external court trying US citizens.
There would be the crux, why would US citizens be answerable to anyone else. Just because they torture citizens of other countries, why should they be answerable to anyone else.
Retain your "right" to torture. Just bear in mind that it precludes you from judging others who do the same thing. You cant have it both ways.
hobbes
11-25-2005, 11:33 PM
The US government is reserving this right as it knows that torture is going to happen and doesn't want an external court trying US citizens.
There would be the crux, why would US citizens be answerable to anyone else. Just because they torture citizens of other countries, why should they be answerable to anyone else.
Retain your "right" to torture. Just bear in mind that it precludes you from judging others who do the same thing. You cant have it both ways.
It is interesting that your interset/focus in this thread is entirely different from mine.
You like to focus on the judicial aspects and the duplicity of our political system and I am more interested in testing the limits of when and where I could see torture being used.
You are right, we want our cake and to eat it as well. I would definitely prefer that our troubles be dealt with internally, as I think most countries would.
As for trying others, the long standing policy is that the victors make the rules. I'm the sure the US would be more encouraged to join in with a World coalition if we weren't such an obvious standout and target of many.
Coalitions are good for small, not very powerful countries and a burden to dominant ones. It is just human nature to want to be in charge of ones business and not be called over to an external court everytime France wants to call foul.
Sure they are legitimate accusations, but then there is the world of politics and hidden agendas.
Busyman
11-25-2005, 11:41 PM
There would be the crux, why would US citizens be answerable to anyone else. Just because they torture citizens of other countries, why should they be answerable to anyone else.
Retain your "right" to torture. Just bear in mind that it precludes you from judging others who do the same thing. You cant have it both ways.
It is interesting that your interset/focus in this thread is entirely different from mine.
You like to focus on the judicial aspects and the duplicity of our political system and I am more interested in testing the limits of when and where I could see torture being used.
You are right, we want our cake and to eat it as well. I would definitely prefer that our troubles be dealt with internally, as I think most countries would.
As for trying others, the long standing policy is that the victors make the rules. I'm the sure the US would be more encouraged to join in with a World coalition if we weren't such an obvious standout and target of many.
Coalitions are good for small, not very powerful countries and a burden to dominant ones. It is just human nature to want to be in charge of ones business and not be called over to an external court everytime France wants to call foul.
Sure they are legitimate accusations, but then there is the world of politics and hidden agendas.
Good post. However, this "not answering to anyone" can make us more of a target....we don't want to answer because we are a standout target
Sounds cyclic to me.
What is there new in this law (that's on the table) that is not already covered? Anyone?
Have we abandoned the Geneva Convention officially?
Agrajag
11-25-2005, 11:55 PM
You like to focus on the judicial aspects and the duplicity of our political system and I am more interested in testing the limits of when and where I could see torture being used.
Nah, it's much simpler than that.
Your morals allow that torture can be justified.
Mine do not.
You union of states wishes to preserve it's "right" to torture.
My union of nations has decided that it is absolutely proscribed.
The hypocrisy is that your union still fells it is reasonable to condemn other states, whilst retaining your own "right" to torture.
hobbes
11-26-2005, 12:08 AM
You like to focus on the judicial aspects and the duplicity of our political system and I am more interested in testing the limits of when and where I could see torture being used.
Nah, it's much simpler than that.
Your morals allow that torture can be justified.
Mine do not.
You union of states wishes to preserve it's "right" to torture.
My union of nations has decided that it is absolutely proscribed.
The hypocrisy is that your union still fells it is reasonable to condemn other states, whilst retaining your own "right" to torture.
Absolutely justified. The key difference in our morals is that you have divine morals and I have human ones. One makes real life decisions when dealing with the mortal coil as a one time thing with no safety net called heavan.
You let your soldiers dies, I save mine. God will understand, I don't think I could live with my self NOT saving them.
My union wishes to retain the right to do what it deems fit and to handle impropriety internally.
Your union still torturers despite the laws it passes.
We don't retain the right to torture, we just don't tie our hands with rules we know that your side and our side don't obey.
Busyman
11-26-2005, 12:14 AM
Nah, it's much simpler than that.
Your morals allow that torture can be justified.
Mine do not.
You union of states wishes to preserve it's "right" to torture.
My union of nations has decided that it is absolutely proscribed.
The hypocrisy is that your union still fells it is reasonable to condemn other states, whilst retaining your own "right" to torture.
Absolutely justified. The key difference in our morals is that you have divine morals and I have human ones. One makes real life decisions when dealing with the mortal coil as a one time thing with no safety net called heavan.
You let your soldiers dies, I save mine. God will understand, I don't couldn't live with my self NOT saving them.
My union wishes to retain the right to do what it deems fit and to handle impropriety internally.
Your union still torturers despite the laws it passes.
We don't retain the right to torture, we just don't tie our hands with rules we know that your side and our side don't obey.
But, but...that would be hypocrisy.:O
Would you be ok with torture being conducted on american citizens (on the US mainland)? and for crimes other than terrorism (e.g. national security or serial murder)
hobbes
11-26-2005, 01:23 AM
Would you be ok with torture being conducted on american citizens (on the US mainland)? and for crimes other than terrorism (e.g. national security or serial murder)
I think that I wouldn't mind torturing someone who had kidnapped another and refused to give their location, knowing that the captive would die of thirst/exposure/suffocation/inflicted wounds.
Pretty much a parallel to my other scenario, but in this case we have a clearcut innocent and aggressor. In wartime, such a distinction varies from the perspective of the observer.
Again, not a popular thing to say, but I have to talk the truth. If my daughter were the captive and I had to sit there politely and watch the perp sit snug as a bug in his cell, eating 3 squares, I think I would literally explode.
Agrajag
11-26-2005, 02:36 AM
Again, not a popular thing to say, but I have to talk the truth. If my daughter were the captive and I had to sit there politely and watch the perp sit snug as a bug in his cell, eating 3 squares, I think I would literally explode.
Could you try to make that more emotive.
I love rabble rousers, they are cool.
I particularly liked the bits where you used the word "perp", assuming guilt. "snug as a bug" implying prison was cosy and "3 squares", telling the reader that they were paying for this chaps keep.
Really rather nice manipulation. Are you a politician at all.
Busyman
11-26-2005, 02:39 AM
Would you be ok with torture being conducted on american citizens (on the US mainland)? and for crimes other than terrorism (e.g. national security or serial murder)
Sure but it depends on what you consider torture, what the crime is, and what evidence is there to say that committed the crime.
Agrajag
11-26-2005, 02:44 AM
Would you be ok with torture being conducted on american citizens (on the US mainland)? and for crimes other than terrorism (e.g. national security or serial murder)
Sure but it depends on what you consider torture, what the crime is, and what evidence is there to say that committed the crime.
Don't the military make such decisions, or is it just hobbes who feels that way.
Busyman
11-26-2005, 06:07 AM
Sure but it depends on what you consider torture, what the crime is, and what evidence is there to say that committed the crime.
Don't the military make such decisions, or is it just hobbes who feels that way.
I'd imagine it'd have to be a military issue for it to be up for military decision.
A domestic kidnapping case, for instance, wouldn't fall under that.
From what I understand also, many things are considered torture like sleep deprivation, threats, insults and more.
That's fucking ridiculous.
On the surface, I was for this Amendment. Upon further review however, I hope Bush vetoes it.
I am for having a higher standard than our enemies but this amendment hog ties the government from any information extraction and it's next to impossible to adhere to unless prisoners are put in a 5-star hotel.
What really sickens me is the fact that Abu Grabass Prison seems to be the impetus behind this push for new legislation. Sorry but laws were already in place and those laws were broken. Amendment - not needed.
The very fact that Grabass Prison was exposed is enough to fuel more proper training and teaching of high ethical standards for our troops. It was an isolated incident that was caught on camera, not a standard taught by and to our military. (see: putting naked Muslim men in a pyramid)
Again, not a popular thing to say, but I have to talk the truth. If my daughter were the captive and I had to sit there politely and watch the perp sit snug as a bug in his cell, eating 3 squares, I think I would literally explode.
Could you try to make that more emotive.
I love rabble rousers, they are cool.
I particularly liked the bits where you used the word "perp", assuming guilt. "snug as a bug" implying prison was cosy and "3 squares", telling the reader that they were paying for this chaps keep.
Really rather nice manipulation. Are you a politician at all.
You slay me, but only figuratively.:P
Are you a professional heckler or "egger-onner" at all, at all. :D
Hobbes does indeed raise rabble, but on the side; there's no real money in it, you see.
When I was younger, I used to hustle rabble in bars and taverns for pocket money, but grew out of it.
I hope I don't get a spamming rip from you-know-who over this post...I don't know if I could handle another one.:cool:
Busyman
11-26-2005, 04:02 PM
Could you try to make that more emotive.
I love rabble rousers, they are cool.
I particularly liked the bits where you used the word "perp", assuming guilt. "snug as a bug" implying prison was cosy and "3 squares", telling the reader that they were paying for this chaps keep.
Really rather nice manipulation. Are you a politician at all.
You slay me, but only figuratively.:P
Are you a professional heckler or "egger-onner" at all, at all. :D
Hobbes does indeed raise rabble, but on the side; there's no real money in it, you see.
When I was younger, I used to hustle rabble in bars and taverns for pocket money, but grew out of it.
I hope I don't get a spamming rip from you-know-who over this post...I don't know if I could handle another one.:cool:
You be at 10,000 posts in no time.......spamming cunt.:P
Biggles
11-26-2005, 04:24 PM
I haven't had time to read all this yet but there are a couple of points that have reaised their heads on this topic in the wider media.
Firstly, one or two EU countries (Poland being one) have been accused of hosting secret prisons and torture units.
If so, they are deep doo doo. They have signed agreements on human rights and will be fined heavily if this is verified.
Secondly, the only vestige of a fig leaf Bush and Blair have left on Iraq is that Saddam was a bad man who tortured people (largely, ironically, the same people we now appear to be torturing - Islamic militants).
Hobbes is right in that human rights and not torturing people is a relatively modern concept. The Church (both Catholic and Protestant) were very big on it a few hundred years ago. There is a natural urge to want to get back at those who are perceived as the enemy.
However, what history tells us is that the tortured confess to anything and tell their torturers what they want to hear. Those on the side of the tortured swear revenge and so the bloody cycle goes on.
The use of torture and the, what can only be described as insane, idea to blow up the Al Jazeera offices in Dubai would suggest to the watching world that our feet are made of the grubbiest of clay. It is time to get a new set of feet and some decent metal polish.
suprafreak6
11-26-2005, 04:36 PM
they dont work, and your an athiest whats cool
Biggles
11-26-2005, 04:40 PM
? :blink:
You slay me, but only figuratively.:P
Are you a professional heckler or "egger-onner" at all, at all. :D
Hobbes does indeed raise rabble, but on the side; there's no real money in it, you see.
When I was younger, I used to hustle rabble in bars and taverns for pocket money, but grew out of it.
I hope I don't get a spamming rip from you-know-who over this post...I don't know if I could handle another one.:cool:
You be at 10,000 posts in no time.......spamming cunt.:P
I was thinking of a different you-know-who, but thanks for thinking of me.:)
I haven't had time to read all this yet but there are a couple of points that have reaised their heads on this topic in the wider media.
Firstly, one or two EU countries (Poland being one) have been accused of hosting secret prisons and torture units.
If so, they are deep doo doo. They have signed agreements on human rights and will be fined heavily if this is verified.
Secondly, the only vestige of a fig leaf Bush and Blair have left on Iraq is that Saddam was a bad man who tortured people (largely, ironically, the same people we now appear to be torturing - Islamic militants).
Hobbes is right in that human rights and not torturing people is a relatively modern concept. The Church (both Catholic and Protestant) were very big on it a few hundred years ago. There is a natural urge to want to get back at those who are perceived as the enemy.
However, what history tells us is that the tortured confess to anything and tell their torturers what they want to hear. Those on the side of the tortured swear revenge and so the bloody cycle goes on.
The use of torture and the, what can only be described as insane, idea to blow up the Al Jazeera offices in Dubai would suggest to the watching world that our feet are made of the grubbiest of clay. It is time to get a new set of feet and some decent metal polish.
What has become a bit obscured is the fact that the critics are objecting/referring to the more benign methodologies (sleep deprivation, sensory overload, etc.) as incredibly heinous and brutal.
When such trespasses are viewed as equivalent to bamboo shoots, electrified genitalia, physical beatings and the like, we end up with no effective way to properly hone the points we wish to debate.
I am a fan of black-and-white debate, and generally abhor those who come equipped with palettes of varying shades of gray, but there are occasions when distinctions must be made; I feel this is one of them.
I've made a bit of light of the issue of chemical treatments as a means of procuring information, but the actual use of (for example) sodium pentathol doesn't produce any lasting effect, and there are surely other options as well.
What many seem to object to more than anything else is that any particular method may actually be foolproof, and thus constitutes an unfair advantage, especially when the "no harm" aspect renders the "brutal and heinous" arguments (as well as those who use them) moot.
EDIT:
I forgot to make my most important point.
Actual torture (insofar as it is actually occurs) is likely done for reasons of personal animosity on the parts of captors/keepers rather than as part of any generally accepted practice, for precisely those reasons Rat and Les have pointed out (they are not ultimately effective) and what is objected to are the methods I have alluded to, which, by dint of those who insist on objecting, are conducted under such cover as is practicable.
Busyman
11-26-2005, 05:06 PM
You be at 10,000 posts in no time.......spamming cunt.:P
I was thinking of a different you-know-who, but thanks for thinking of me.:)
I know but was encouraged to step in since they don't frequent here (unless it's to do a spamming rip).
They may have missed your post but keep in mind it's only me they follow.
I was thinking of a different you-know-who, but thanks for thinking of me.:)
I know but was encouraged to step in since they don't frequent here (unless it's to do a spamming rip).
They may have missed your post but keep in mind it's only me they follow.
The one I speak of watches me much more closely than he does you, B.
Busyman
11-26-2005, 05:11 PM
I haven't had time to read all this yet but there are a couple of points that have reaised their heads on this topic in the wider media.
Firstly, one or two EU countries (Poland being one) have been accused of hosting secret prisons and torture units.
If so, they are deep doo doo. They have signed agreements on human rights and will be fined heavily if this is verified.
Secondly, the only vestige of a fig leaf Bush and Blair have left on Iraq is that Saddam was a bad man who tortured people (largely, ironically, the same people we now appear to be torturing - Islamic militants).
Hobbes is right in that human rights and not torturing people is a relatively modern concept. The Church (both Catholic and Protestant) were very big on it a few hundred years ago. There is a natural urge to want to get back at those who are perceived as the enemy.
However, what history tells us is that the tortured confess to anything and tell their torturers what they want to hear. Those on the side of the tortured swear revenge and so the bloody cycle goes on.
The use of torture and the, what can only be described as insane, idea to blow up the Al Jazeera offices in Dubai would suggest to the watching world that our feet are made of the grubbiest of clay. It is time to get a new set of feet and some decent metal polish.
What has become a bit obscured is the fact that the critics are objecting/referring to the more benign methodologies (sleep deprivation, sensory overload, etc.) as incredibly heinous and brutal.
When such trespasses are viewed as equivalent to bamboo shoots, electrified genitalia, physical beatings and the like, we end up with no effective way to properly hone the points we wish to debate.
I am a fan of black-and-white debate, and generally abhor those who come equipped with palettes of varying shades of gray, but there are occasions when distinctions must be made; I feel this is one of them.
I've made a bit of light of the issue of chemical treatments as a means of procuring information, but the actual use of (for example) sodium pentathol doesn't produce any lasting effect, and there are surely other options as well.
What many seem to object to more than anything else is that any particular method may actually be foolproof, and thus constitutes an unfair advantage, especially when the "no harm" aspect renders the "brutal and heinous" arguments (as well as those who use them) moot.
OMG j2 but if we deprive a prisoner of sleep we have reduced ourselves to the roles of barbarians.:O
That's just not right. I mean Saddam beat the shit out of folks so we definitely can't go around keeping folks from their 8 hours of rest. We have to be gentlemanly and stuff. :snooty: If we show our prisoners how nice we are, they will like us and the wars will stop and whatnot.
Busyman
11-26-2005, 05:12 PM
I know but was encouraged to step in since they don't frequent here (unless it's to do a spamming rip).
They may have missed your post but keep in mind it's only me they follow.
The one I speak of watches me much more closely than he does you, B.
O RLY!!!:O
I find that hard to believe.
Biggles
11-26-2005, 05:21 PM
What has become a bit obscured is the fact that the critics are objecting/referring to the more benign methodologies (sleep deprivation, sensory overload, etc.) as incredibly heinous and brutal.
When such trespasses are viewed as equivalent to bamboo shoots, electrified genitalia, physical beatings and the like, we end up with no effective way to properly hone the points we wish to debate.
I am a fan of black-and-white debate, and generally abhor those who come equipped with palettes of varying shades of gray, but there are occasions when distinctions must be made; I feel this is one of them.
I've made a bit of light of the issue of chemical treatments as a means of procuring information, but the actual use of (for example) sodium pentathol doesn't produce any lasting effect, and there are surely other options as well.
What many seem to object to more than anything else is that any particular method may actually be foolproof, and thus constitutes an unfair advantage, especially when the "no harm" aspect renders the "brutal and heinous" arguments (as well as those who use them) moot.
OMG j2 but if we deprive a prisoner of sleep we have reduced ourselves to the roles of barbarians.:O
That's just not right. I mean Saddam beat the shit out of folks so we definitely can't go around keeping folks from their 8 hours of rest. We have to be gentlemanly and stuff. :snooty: If we show our prisoners how nice we are, they will like us and the wars will stop and whatnot.
However, there are suggestions that much nastier methods than those spoken of by J2 were employed. This may or may not be the case no doubt we shall find out in due course because things do appear to leaking out on a regular basis.
Busyman
11-26-2005, 05:40 PM
OMG j2 but if we deprive a prisoner of sleep we have reduced ourselves to the roles of barbarians.:O
That's just not right. I mean Saddam beat the shit out of folks so we definitely can't go around keeping folks from their 8 hours of rest. We have to be gentlemanly and stuff. :snooty: If we show our prisoners how nice we are, they will like us and the wars will stop and whatnot.
However, there are suggestions that much nastier methods than those spoken of by J2 were employed. This may or may not be the case no doubt we shall find out in due course because things do appear to leaking out on a regular basis.
Agreed but the amendment in question is too broad.
Do you agree?
Agrajag
11-26-2005, 05:44 PM
OMG j2 but if we deprive a prisoner of sleep we have reduced ourselves to the roles of barbarians.:O
Yeah and make sure the perp gets his 3 squares as well.
The point is that your Govt refuses to preclude the use of torture. I'm not sure if they listed which methods they intended to deploy. They seemed to want to keep their options open.
Here's an interesting quote
The international legal definition of torture is universally recognized and accepted -- and is very different from what Administration lawyers claim. The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment forbids torture under any circumstances and does not allow the prohibition to be derogated even in conditions of national emergency.
The United States are signatories to that convention, and under the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law, just like statutes and Supreme Court decisions. So claiming the U.S. has the right to differ from this definition is simply untenable.
Here is the Torture Convention's definition of "torture": "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
from http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/25/leavitt.torture/
You will also no doubt note the part ".... by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
OMG j2 but if we deprive a prisoner of sleep we have reduced ourselves to the roles of barbarians.:O
That's just not right. I mean Saddam beat the shit out of folks so we definitely can't go around keeping folks from their 8 hours of rest. We have to be gentlemanly and stuff. :snooty: If we show our prisoners how nice we are, they will like us and the wars will stop and whatnot.
However, there are suggestions that much nastier methods than those spoken of by J2 were employed. This may or may not be the case no doubt we shall find out in due course because things do appear to leaking out on a regular basis.
But of late, the need for great copy and inflammatory rhetoric has carried the day, and, as I noted, you fellows are not the sole purveyors of the "torture doesn't work" theory; those responsible for the regimen are certainly aware of it, too.
Anecdotal "evidence" is routinely given more weight, credibility and reportage than it warrants.
No matter general perceptions, the keepers desire above all else to be effective, and so actual "torture" would necessarily be viewed as punishment rather than a way to gather intelligence.
That would be to say that any torture is somewhat less than endemic or systematic.
Busyman
11-26-2005, 06:44 PM
Yeah and make sure the perp gets his 3 squares as well.
The point is that your Govt refuses to preclude the use of torture. I'm not sure if they listed which methods they intended to deploy. They seemed to want to keep their options open.
Here's an interesting quote
The international legal definition of torture is universally recognized and accepted -- and is very different from what Administration lawyers claim. The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment forbids torture under any circumstances and does not allow the prohibition to be derogated even in conditions of national emergency.
The United States are signatories to that convention, and under the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law, just like statutes and Supreme Court decisions. So claiming the U.S. has the right to differ from this definition is simply untenable.
Here is the Torture Convention's definition of "torture": "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
from http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/25/leavitt.torture/
You will also no doubt note the part ".... by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
Excellent info.
I think the U.S. needs to go back from that then. It's too broad.
We can't use sleep deprivation ffs. Fuck that.
Biggles
11-27-2005, 09:53 AM
All police forces use mild sleep deprivation up to a point as it makes it easier to determine whether people are making stuff up or not. It is hard to stick to a fabrication if one is a bit sleepy.
However, prolonged sleep deprivation can cause serious physical and mental problems and in extreme cases death. That I think would be classed as torture.
J2 is right in that much is unclear at the moment. However, the report I read appeared to suggest that a modern day version of the Chinese Water Torture was being employed. The clue in that one is, I would say, in the name.
As to the USA stepping back from International agreements on torture, this might allow some wriggle room but it is hard to see how a President could go to a place like China and talk about human rights on the back of such a move. It would be the thin end of the wedge and set a rather dangerous precedent in my view.
I agree biggles, he is a rather dangerous president :rolleyes:
I (for one) am heartened that he is not eager to march in lockstep with international sentiment that is dedicated to policies meant to hamstring America while abiding the presence of such as China and Libya, et. al. on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council.
To shrink from such policy is less to denigrate it than to question the intent of it's authors.
If that sounds as if I believe the U.S. might be balking due to it's lack of involvement in the formulation of these "guidelines" for international behaviors, then you'd be right.
Everyone is consumed with the idea that the U.S. will bigfoot international policy and so would deny "bigfoot" it's due.
The ability of the international community to browbeat the U.S. is somewhat less than it enjoys in the case of, say, East Timor.
The U.S. has every right to play a major role in the process.
Clinton paid lip-service to Kyoto and gave the impression the U.S. would be aboard in short order, but failed to follow through; can you guess why?
It cannot be said that Bush is practicing similar deception.
Sorry for the colloquialism, but there you are.
Busyman
11-27-2005, 04:26 PM
All police forces use mild sleep deprivation up to a point as it makes it easier to determine whether people are making stuff up or not. It is hard to stick to a fabrication if one is a bit sleepy.
However, prolonged sleep deprivation can cause serious physical and mental problems and in extreme cases death. That I think would be classed as torture.
J2 is right in that much is unclear at the moment. However, the report I read appeared to suggest that a modern day version of the Chinese Water Torture was being employed. The clue in that one is, I would say, in the name.
As to the USA stepping back from International agreements on torture, this might allow some wriggle room but it is hard to see how a President could go to a place like China and talk about human rights on the back of such a move. It would be the thin end of the wedge and set a rather dangerous precedent in my view.
The amendment's to broad, Biggles.:dry:
Busyman
11-27-2005, 04:27 PM
I agree biggles, he is a rather dangerous president :rolleyes:
I agree as well.
Rat Faced
11-27-2005, 08:38 PM
Yeah and make sure the perp gets his 3 squares as well.
The point is that your Govt refuses to preclude the use of torture. I'm not sure if they listed which methods they intended to deploy. They seemed to want to keep their options open.
Here's an interesting quote
from http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/25/leavitt.torture/
You will also no doubt note the part ".... by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
Excellent info.
I think the U.S. needs to go back from that then. It's too broad.
We can't use sleep deprivation ffs. Fuck that.
Sleep Deprivation and the use of Stress Positions are allowed.
Everyone with the right to hold suspects uses the Sleep Deprivation, the Military and some Police Forces in US/UK use Stress Postions too.
Mr JP Fugley
11-27-2005, 09:16 PM
I (for one) am heartened that he is not eager to march in lockstep with international sentiment that is dedicated to policies meant to hamstring America while abiding the presence of such as China and Libya, et. al. on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council.
To shrink from such policy is less to denigrate it than to question the intent of it's authors.
If that sounds as if I believe the U.S. might be balking due to it's lack of involvement in the formulation of these "guidelines" for international behaviors, then you'd be right.
Everyone is consumed with the idea that the U.S. will bigfoot international policy and so would deny "bigfoot" it's due.
The ability of the international community to browbeat the U.S. is somewhat less than it enjoys in the case of, say, East Timor.
The U.S. has every right to play a major role in the process.
Clinton paid lip-service to Kyoto and gave the impression the U.S. would be aboard in short order, but failed to follow through; can you guess why?
It cannot be said that Bush is practicing similar deception.
Sorry for the colloquialism, but there you are.
Maybe I picked things up wrong, but you (US) are signatories to the treaty and as such it forms part of your law (it's a Constitution thing).
The United States are signatories to that convention, and under the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law, just like statutes and Supreme Court decisions. So claiming the U.S. has the right to differ from this definition is simply untenable.
If you (US) didn't like it then why sign it.
The author of the article I quoted finishes it rather aptly.
The issue is one of morality and decency -- and of honor, and compliance with the law. But it also has a pragmatic side. When U.S. soldiers are prisoners of war, will we want a narrow definition of torture to be used? When it is our people who are in the sights of a gun, will we want that definition to exclude assassination?
Seems like an all round good egg.
Rat Faced
11-27-2005, 09:21 PM
Its only Torture if done against US citizens by non US cirizens, doncha know :snooty:
Busyman
11-27-2005, 09:28 PM
Obviously Bush now doesn't like some things in the treaty.
Mr JP Fugley
11-27-2005, 09:31 PM
Obviously Bush now doesn't like some things in the treaty.
Is he also exempt from The Constitution.
Mr JP Fugley
11-27-2005, 09:33 PM
Its only Torture if done against US citizens by non US cirizens, doncha know :snooty:
Sorry, I didn't read the whole treaty, must have missed that bit.
Busyman
11-27-2005, 09:42 PM
Excellent info.
I think the U.S. needs to go back from that then. It's too broad.
We can't use sleep deprivation ffs. Fuck that.
Sleep Deprivation and the use of Stress Positions are allowed.
Everyone with the right to hold suspects uses the Sleep Deprivation, the Military and some Police Forces in US/UK use Stress Postions too.
Where'd you get that information?
Apparently, if a person anticipates death, that violates the Torture Convention.
Don't me wrong I don't like how narrow Bush wants to define torture but I also don't like the current way it's defined.
It DOES need to be narrowed.
You can't threaten for ffs.
Busyman
11-27-2005, 09:43 PM
Obviously Bush now doesn't like some things in the treaty.
Is he also exempt from The Constitution.
The law should be changed is all.
Maybe I picked things up wrong, but you (US) are signatories to the treaty and as such it forms part of your law (it's a Constitution thing).
The United States are signatories to that convention, and under the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law, just like statutes and Supreme Court decisions. So claiming the U.S. has the right to differ from this definition is simply untenable.
If you (US) didn't like it then why sign it.
The author of the article I quoted finishes it rather aptly.
The issue is one of morality and decency -- and of honor, and compliance with the law. But it also has a pragmatic side. When U.S. soldiers are prisoners of war, will we want a narrow definition of torture to be used? When it is our people who are in the sights of a gun, will we want that definition to exclude assassination?
Seems like an all round good egg.
What is the treaty's vintage?
Who signed it?
A democrat, I'll bet.
BTW-
I think you'll find a good egg to be more ovate than "round".:P
Mr JP Fugley
11-27-2005, 10:02 PM
Maybe I picked things up wrong, but you (US) are signatories to the treaty and as such it forms part of your law (it's a Constitution thing).
If you (US) didn't like it then why sign it.
The author of the article I quoted finishes it rather aptly.
The issue is one of morality and decency -- and of honor, and compliance with the law. But it also has a pragmatic side. When U.S. soldiers are prisoners of war, will we want a narrow definition of torture to be used? When it is our people who are in the sights of a gun, will we want that definition to exclude assassination?
Seems like an all round good egg.
What is the treaty's vintage?
Who signed it?
A democrat, I'll bet.
BTW-
I think you'll find a good egg to be more ovate than "round".:P
February 4, 1985 it was first opened for signature.
Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead signed it on April 18, 1988. In 1985, he had been asked to become Deputy Secretary of State, number two to George Schultz. Following his four years of service, he was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by President Reagan.
Anything else I can help you with, old pulse.
EDIT You ratified it in 1994.
Maybe I picked things up wrong, but you (US) are signatories to the treaty and as such it forms part of your law (it's a Constitution thing).
If you (US) didn't like it then why sign it.
The author of the article I quoted finishes it rather aptly.
Seems like an all round good egg.
What is the treaty's vintage?
Who signed it?
A democrat, I'll bet.
BTW-
I think you'll find a good egg to be more ovate than "round".:P
February 4, 1985 it was first opened for signature.
Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead signed it on April 18, 1988. In 1985, he had been asked to become Deputy Secretary of State, number two to George Schultz. Following his four years of service, he was awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal by President Reagan.
Anything else I can help you with, old pulse.
EDIT You ratified it in 1994.
So then Reagan did a Clinton, then Clinton did a Clinton, then Ms. Leiwinsky did Clinton, now Bush is trying to undo Clinton.
Sounds right.
BTW-
Anything signed by a Deputy Sec'y is void after his tenure.
Schultz's signature would have been binding, unless he signed with disappearing ink.
In any case, I think Bush's reasoning (such as it is) comes down to the doubtful status of the captured combatants/terrorists vis a vis these agreements.
It seems if he denies them standard definitional status, the international policy-making bodies might address the specific difficulty presented by Al Qaeda, et.al., and perhaps write codicils directed at such troublemakers, rather than using the inappropriate umbrella(s) extant.
Surely this is not asking too much?
JPaul
11-28-2005, 12:02 AM
In any case, I think Bush's reasoning (such as it is) comes down to the doubtful status of the captured combatants/terrorists vis a vis these agreements.
The status of the person being tortured is irrelevant.
The treaty relates to how people will be treated, it says nothing of who or what they are, or what they are accused of, or who their associates are.
In any case, I think Bush's reasoning (such as it is) comes down to the doubtful status of the captured combatants/terrorists vis a vis these agreements.
The status of the person being tortured is irrelevant.
The treaty relates to how people will be treated, it says nothing of who or what they are, or what they are accused of, or who their associates are.
Well, to be perfectly clear, I buy your reasoning, as well as my own and others, and rationales (questionable though they may be) exist for most of them.
I believe also the outrages we've witnessed on the parts of the terrorists should be met by something other than steadfast pacifism.
I frankly don't have the slightest idea how we'd go about finding and fighting terrorists if we are to be bound and restricted by high-flown moralism at every turn; after all, if we could run them through a military tribunal in proper fashion, they wouldn't have to be subject for such extended periods to guardians who get sick of looking at them.
Alas, the "international" types have no truck with such proceedings, and would preclude them, too.
I think we should serve Scrapple for breakfast at Abu Ghraib, but then I'm a real sicko.:D
Busyman
11-28-2005, 08:41 AM
The status of the person being tortured is irrelevant.
The treaty relates to how people will be treated, it says nothing of who or what they are, or what they are accused of, or who their associates are.
Well, to be perfectly clear, I buy your reasoning, as well as my own and others, and rationales (questionable though they may be) exist for most of them.
I believe also the outrages we've witnessed on the parts of the terrorists should be met by something other than steadfast pacifism.
I frankly don't have the slightest idea how we'd go about finding and fighting terrorists if we are to be bound and restricted by high-flown moralism at every turn; after all, if we could run them through a military tribunal in proper fashion, they wouldn't have to be subject for such extended periods to guardians who get sick of looking at them.
Alas, the "international" types have no truck with such proceedings, and would preclude them, too.
I think we should serve Scrapple for breakfast at Abu Ghraib, but then I'm a real sicko.:D
But you'd be violating their religious beliefs. That's mental torture and you are harming them. You can't do that and whatnot.
JPaul
11-28-2005, 09:01 AM
The status of the person being tortured is irrelevant.
The treaty relates to how people will be treated, it says nothing of who or what they are, or what they are accused of, or who their associates are.
I believe also the outrages we've witnessed on the parts of the terrorists should be met by something other than steadfast pacifism.
I frankly don't have the slightest idea how we'd go about finding and fighting terrorists if we are to be bound and restricted by high-flown moralism at every turn.
To stop torturing people does not mean that you become steadfastly pacifist. Oh wait, you don't believe that any more than I do. You are just doing the emotive description thing. Trying to make a point via the gift of talking pish.
There are loads of ways of finding and fighting terrorists without the use of torture. Oh wait, you knew that as well, would that mean that your use of the phrase "high-flown moralism" was more technique than substance.
Feck, I thought we were discussing something here, the validity of civilized people torturing folk. Turns out it's just an exercise justifying the untenable.
JPaul
11-28-2005, 09:04 AM
Well, to be perfectly clear, I buy your reasoning, as well as my own and others, and rationales (questionable though they may be) exist for most of them.
I believe also the outrages we've witnessed on the parts of the terrorists should be met by something other than steadfast pacifism.
I frankly don't have the slightest idea how we'd go about finding and fighting terrorists if we are to be bound and restricted by high-flown moralism at every turn; after all, if we could run them through a military tribunal in proper fashion, they wouldn't have to be subject for such extended periods to guardians who get sick of looking at them.
Alas, the "international" types have no truck with such proceedings, and would preclude them, too.
I think we should serve Scrapple for breakfast at Abu Ghraib, but then I'm a real sicko.:D
But you'd be violating their religious beliefs. That's mental torture and you are harming them. You can't do that and whatnot.
If you don't like the rules, don't sign up to them.
Or was it just the US thinking, "shit everyone else is saying torture is bad, we better say that as well. We won't actually have to stop doing it, obviousement".
Rat Faced
11-28-2005, 09:08 AM
I believe also the outrages we've witnessed on the parts of the terrorists should be met by something other than steadfast pacifism.
You mean the use of Chemical Weapons and the levelling of cities that the citizens were not allowed to leave for a couple of weeks beforehand type thing...
Oh, wait...
Busyman
11-28-2005, 09:15 AM
But you'd be violating their religious beliefs. That's mental torture and you are harming them. You can't do that and whatnot.
If you don't like the rules, don't sign up to them.
Or was it just the US thinking, "shit everyone else is saying torture is bad, we better say that as well. We won't actually have to stop doing it, obviousement".
Aww hell man, you've got to be a special type of stupid to believe that other countries (including yours) that signed are not using torture.:lol: :lol:
The thing is Bush is sitting there saying torture is okay which is also stupid.
I just want torture to be narrowed law-wise.
As it's defined now, almost anything can be considered torture.
Rat Faced
11-28-2005, 09:20 AM
almost anything can be considered torture.
I agree, this thread is slowly killing me.
Busyman
11-28-2005, 09:44 AM
almost anything can be considered torture.
I agree, this thread is slowly killing me.
Take it from around your neck.
JPaul
11-28-2005, 10:14 AM
Aww hell man, you've got to be a special type of stupid to believe that other countries (including yours) that signed are not using torture.:lol: :lol:
Your's however is the country who, at the highest level, is saying that it is OK for them to use torture. In spite of still being party to a treaty which prohibits it.
People break rules, we know that, you really are not the only person who lives in the real World. However that does not mean that we should not have rules. That does not mean we should not make laws in order to try to stop that which we know is wrong. Then, having laid down the things we as a society have decided are wrong, we can take action against those who break the rules.
Murder is a crime, yet people still do it. That does not mean that we should allow it. This argument that people will commit acts of torture anyway is just as nonsensical.
Torture is wrong, so we legislate against it. If people do it, we take action against them. We do not argue that it's OK for us to do just a wee bit of torture, when we decide that we can justify it.
Busyman
11-28-2005, 10:38 AM
Aww hell man, you've got to be a special type of stupid to believe that other countries (including yours) that signed are not using torture.:lol: :lol:
Your's however is the country who, at the highest level, is saying that it is OK for them to use torture. In spite of still being party to a treaty which prohibits it.
People break rules, we know that, you really are not the only person who lives in the real World. However that does not mean that we should not have rules. That does not mean we should not make laws in order to try to stop that which we know is wrong. Then, having laid down the things we as a society have decided are wrong, we can take action against those who break the rules.
Murder is a crime, yet people still do it. That does not mean that we should allow it. This argument that people will commit acts of torture anyway is just as nonsensical.
Torture is wrong, so we legislate against it. If people do it, we take action against them. We do not argue that it's OK for us to do just a wee bit of torture, when we decide that we can justify it.
Did you read the entire post or did you just want to nitpick.:dry:
If we already have this as law why is this amendment needed? Genuinely curious.:unsure:
JPaul
11-28-2005, 11:19 AM
Your's however is the country who, at the highest level, is saying that it is OK for them to use torture. In spite of still being party to a treaty which prohibits it.
People break rules, we know that, you really are not the only person who lives in the real World. However that does not mean that we should not have rules. That does not mean we should not make laws in order to try to stop that which we know is wrong. Then, having laid down the things we as a society have decided are wrong, we can take action against those who break the rules.
Murder is a crime, yet people still do it. That does not mean that we should allow it. This argument that people will commit acts of torture anyway is just as nonsensical.
Torture is wrong, so we legislate against it. If people do it, we take action against them. We do not argue that it's OK for us to do just a wee bit of torture, when we decide that we can justify it.
Did you read the entire post or did you just want to nitpick.:dry:
I replied to your sarcasm, Its a "special kind of stupid" thing.
Oh and it wasn't nit-picking, it was explaining my opinion.
JPaul
11-28-2005, 11:21 AM
If we already have this as law why is this amendment needed? Genuinely curious.:unsure:
Which amendment, I really amn't that up on US law.
Busyman
11-28-2005, 01:36 PM
If we already have this as law why is this amendment needed? Genuinely curious.:unsure:
Which amendment, I really amn't that up on US law.
The one referred to in the link at the very beginning of this thread.
JPaul
11-28-2005, 03:31 PM
Which amendment, I really amn't that up on US law.
The one referred to in the link at the very beginning of this thread.
Oh right, :blushing: it just seems so long ago.
From my reading of it the amendment is seeking to clarify the position for your military. It is not really adding to the fact that torture is not allowed, it is more to let them know what they can do. Bascially if they stick to their "Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation" then they will be staying within the rules of what they are allowed to do.
The amendments to the amendment would be to allow the CIA to carry on as before, which seems a bit strange. The US would be saying that they were abiding by the treaty, by following their own rules (Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation) but breaking the rules they signed up to, when they didn't suit.
That's just my simplified quick read at it tho'.
Busyman
11-28-2005, 06:03 PM
The one referred to in the link at the very beginning of this thread.
Oh right, :blushing: it just seems so long ago.
From my reading of it the amendment is seeking to clarify the position for your military. It is not really adding to the fact that torture is not allowed, it is more to let them know what they can do. Bascially if they stick to their "Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation" then they will be staying within the rules of what they are allowed to do.
The amendments to the amendment would be to allow the CIA to carry on as before, which seems a bit strange. The US would be saying that they were abiding by the treaty, by following their own rules (Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation) but breaking the rules they signed up to, when they didn't suit.
That's just my simplified quick read at it tho'.
Hmmm it seems they need to have an 'everyone or STFU' approach. Allowing the CIA to do all types of torture but disallowing everyone else seems ass backwards.
The amendment doesn't seem to narrow "torture" down either.
It's useless takeadvantageofAbuGrabassforsoundbites crap.
Your's however is the country who, at the highest level, is saying that it is OK for them to use torture. In spite of still being party to a treaty which prohibits it.
JP-I found something which speaks directly to your point, and recalls more clearly a vague memory of my own.
I have emboldened the most relevant sections...
Rich Lowry 11/15/05
American Grandstand
This one’s dangerous.
When legislation passes in the Senate by an overwhelming 90-9 vote, it is often a sign that it is either meaningless fluff or a bad idea. The McCain "anti-torture" amendment, which passed by such a wide margin in an initial test of strength and which will be up for debate again soon, is both — an instance of congressional grandstanding that also might prove harmful.
One part of the amendment bans "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment. John McCain himself says that if the amendment's prohibition against such treatment "doesn't sound new, that's because it's not — the prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States." Ah. So why, then, is the McCain amendment necessary?
According to McCain, it is necessary because the U.S. maintains that the prohibition against cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, which it agreed to in the Convention Against Torture, doesn't apply to foreigners held overseas. Indeed, Congress was careful to include this caveat when it ratified the convention in 1994. As legal analyst Andy McCarthy notes, instead of closing this loophole, the McCain amendment appears to perpetuate it by repeating the same language Congress used to carve it out in 1994. This is legislative sleight of hand in the cause of moralistic self-congratulation.
The other part of the amendment gives the Army Field Manual and its standard for interrogations the force of law. This is where the amendment will have bite. In theory, the manual could be rewritten to allow explicitly for the kind of stress techniques — keeping detainees awake for long periods, putting them in uncomfortable positions, etc. — that have been controversial since 9/11. The existing manual frowns on these methods, and a new version currently being formulated is likely to be even more restrictive, although it will probably leave key questions vague.
The McCain amendment, however, will make any leeway in the manual moot. Because it creates no specific safe harbor for stress techniques, has no definition of what is cruel and inhumane and what isn't, and has been accompanied by a fusillade of congressional rhetoric against Bush administration interrogation policy, it will be interpreted as banning any technique overseas that we wouldn't use with criminal suspects in the U.S. This is an unreasonable standard, and one that McCain and his backers apparently don't have the gumption to state and defend openly.
A distinction has to be made between wanton abuses like those in Abu Ghraib and tightly controlled interrogations of top-level al Qaeda captives. Yes, prisoners should be treated humanely, and it will be a permanent blot on the administration's record that it didn't better control how prisoners were being treated in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But there are cases when tough techniques are probably justified. When al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida, a planner of 9/11, was caught in Pakistan, he had been shot in the groin. Painkillers were administered selectively as an interrogation tactic. He coughed up information that led to the capture of other al Qaeda members. At Guantanamo Bay, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld approved — then eventually revoked — 16 aggressive techniques for Mohammed al-Qahtani, the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 plot. They involved isolating him, making him stand for long periods and playing on his phobias. They might have helped pressure him into talking.
Would McCain supporters not have been so harsh to Zubaida? Never made al-Qahtani stand? And do they want to make it illegal for U.S. interrogators ever again to make the choices they did in these two cases? It now seems obvious the pendulum swung too far toward tough treatment of our prisoners after 9/11, but that doesn't mean it should swing all the way in the other direction and outlaw techniques that are short of torture, but useful in unraveling what is an ongoing conspiracy to murder Americans.
The interrogation debate, above all, needs adult supervision. It hasn't gotten enough of it from the Bush administration, and it looks as though it won't get any from a preening Congress either.
JPaul
11-28-2005, 10:17 PM
It would appear from your post, or at least the part you have emboldened, that the treaty relates to domestic criminals, but not to soldiers. I say this because domestic criminals are more likely to be captured on "home soil" whereas soldiers are just as likely to be captured on "foreign soil".
I find it frankly stunning that your country would include such a caveat when ratifying the treaty. However then I think on.
Does this caveat apply to everyone, was it added to the treaty, or more likely did your country only ratify this amended version for themselves.
If no-one else has the same caveat, then they are obliged to follow the rules of the treaty, when they capture your soldiers then they cannot torture them. However if the US captures foreign soldiers and keeps them on foreign soil, then the treaty is abandoned.
In essence, if it's a US citizen, no torture. If the prisoner is held in the US, no torture. If it's a foreign citizen, held elsewhere than in the US, torture is OK
Or do I misunderstand.
Why did you put them in Guantanamo btw
After 9/11, however, the Bush administration took the view that the prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" simply does not apply to foreign detainees held outside the United States. It pointed to the fact that when Congress ratified the treaty, it stated its understanding that "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" comprised conduct that would violate the United States Constitution—whose Fifth Amendment prohibits any coercion that "shocks the conscience" in interrogations. Claiming that the U.S. Constitution does not extend to foreigners overseas, the administration reasoned that the treaty prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" is similarly limited.
That is about as disingenuous as the extract you used to justify the legal basis for the torture. It's shameful, if I read it correctly.
http://www.slate.com/id/2130028/#ContinueArticle
It would appear from your post, or at least the part you have emboldened, that the treaty relates to domestic criminals, but not to soldiers. I say this because domestic criminals are more likely to be captured on "home soil" whereas soldiers are just as likely to be captured on "foreign soil".
I find it frankly stunning that your country would include such a caveat when ratifying the treaty. However then I think on.
Does this caveat apply to everyone, was it added to the treaty, or more likely did your country only ratify this amended version for themselves.
If no-one else has the same caveat, then they are obliged to follow the rules of the treaty, when they capture your soldiers then they cannot torture them. However if the US captures foreign soldiers and keeps them on foreign soil, then the treaty is abandoned.
In essence, if it's a US citizen, no torture. If the prisoner is held in the US, no torture. If it's a foreign citizen, held elsewhere than in the US, torture is OK
Or do I misunderstand.
Why did you put them in Guantanamo btw
After 9/11, however, the Bush administration took the view that the prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" simply does not apply to foreign detainees held outside the United States. It pointed to the fact that when Congress ratified the treaty, it stated its understanding that "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" comprised conduct that would violate the United States Constitution—whose Fifth Amendment prohibits any coercion that "shocks the conscience" in interrogations. Claiming that the U.S. Constitution does not extend to foreigners overseas, the administration reasoned that the treaty prohibition on "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" is similarly limited.
That is about as disingenuous as the extract you used to justify the legal basis for the torture. It's shameful, if I read it correctly.
http://www.slate.com/id/2130028/#ContinueArticle
Let's not get sidetracked-I emboldened that section as relevant; the rest is there for context, and to avoid any accusations of selectivity.
I'm justifying nothing, merely pointing out that our Congress included that language in 1994 as a condition of ratification, for which purpose I cannot claim to know.
I find it interesting (for reasons you'd not find as captivating) that this occurred during the Clinton administration, but I looked for it out of a sense of curiouslty about my own remembrance and to provide you with the documentation of this caveat you weren't aware of, and which I couldn't properly elucidate owing to my fuzzy memory.
Why McCain has left the same loophole in his proposal would be interesting to know also, but that is unlikely to be highlighted by our media; they favor him as a "maverick".
This is as opposed to a "cowboy" (Bush); apparently "mavericks " are not possessed of that annoying "swagger".
Busyman
11-29-2005, 12:32 AM
Your's however is the country who, at the highest level, is saying that it is OK for them to use torture. In spite of still being party to a treaty which prohibits it.
JP-I found something which speaks directly to your point, and recalls more clearly a vague memory of my own.
I have emboldened the most relevant sections...
Rich Lowry 11/15/05
American Grandstand
This one’s dangerous.
When legislation passes in the Senate by an overwhelming 90-9 vote, it is often a sign that it is either meaningless fluff or a bad idea. The McCain "anti-torture" amendment, which passed by such a wide margin in an initial test of strength and which will be up for debate again soon, is both — an instance of congressional grandstanding that also might prove harmful.
One part of the amendment bans "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment. John McCain himself says that if the amendment's prohibition against such treatment "doesn't sound new, that's because it's not — the prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States." Ah. So why, then, is the McCain amendment necessary?
According to McCain, it is necessary because the U.S. maintains that the prohibition against cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, which it agreed to in the Convention Against Torture, doesn't apply to foreigners held overseas. Indeed, Congress was careful to include this caveat when it ratified the convention in 1994. As legal analyst Andy McCarthy notes, instead of closing this loophole, the McCain amendment appears to perpetuate it by repeating the same language Congress used to carve it out in 1994. This is legislative sleight of hand in the cause of moralistic self-congratulation.
The other part of the amendment gives the Army Field Manual and its standard for interrogations the force of law. This is where the amendment will have bite. In theory, the manual could be rewritten to allow explicitly for the kind of stress techniques — keeping detainees awake for long periods, putting them in uncomfortable positions, etc. — that have been controversial since 9/11. The existing manual frowns on these methods, and a new version currently being formulated is likely to be even more restrictive, although it will probably leave key questions vague.
The McCain amendment, however, will make any leeway in the manual moot. Because it creates no specific safe harbor for stress techniques, has no definition of what is cruel and inhumane and what isn't, and has been accompanied by a fusillade of congressional rhetoric against Bush administration interrogation policy, it will be interpreted as banning any technique overseas that we wouldn't use with criminal suspects in the U.S. This is an unreasonable standard, and one that McCain and his backers apparently don't have the gumption to state and defend openly.
A distinction has to be made between wanton abuses like those in Abu Ghraib and tightly controlled interrogations of top-level al Qaeda captives. Yes, prisoners should be treated humanely, and it will be a permanent blot on the administration's record that it didn't better control how prisoners were being treated in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But there are cases when tough techniques are probably justified. When al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida, a planner of 9/11, was caught in Pakistan, he had been shot in the groin. Painkillers were administered selectively as an interrogation tactic. He coughed up information that led to the capture of other al Qaeda members. At Guantanamo Bay, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld approved — then eventually revoked — 16 aggressive techniques for Mohammed al-Qahtani, the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 plot. They involved isolating him, making him stand for long periods and playing on his phobias. They might have helped pressure him into talking.
Would McCain supporters not have been so harsh to Zubaida? Never made al-Qahtani stand? And do they want to make it illegal for U.S. interrogators ever again to make the choices they did in these two cases? It now seems obvious the pendulum swung too far toward tough treatment of our prisoners after 9/11, but that doesn't mean it should swing all the way in the other direction and outlaw techniques that are short of torture, but useful in unraveling what is an ongoing conspiracy to murder Americans.
The interrogation debate, above all, needs adult supervision. It hasn't gotten enough of it from the Bush administration, and it looks as though it won't get any from a preening Congress either.
Well damn....
That pretty much clarified a number of questions I had (and weirdly enough has a number of concerns that I had). Freaky.
Good post!!!;)
JPaul
11-29-2005, 12:58 AM
I'm justifying nothing, merely pointing out that our Congress included that language in 1994 as a condition of ratification, for which purpose I cannot claim to know.
Bet you can give a good guess, but.
Unless of course so much spinning makes one too dizzy to interpret the obvious.
Did you feel even remotely embarrased when you hit the "Submit Reply" button. One can only hope so.
hobbes
11-29-2005, 02:12 AM
I went out to my car yesterday and it was covered in bird shit.
I got my shotgun and prepared to kill every bird in the neighborhood.
Ken, my neighbor, stopped me and told me that the birds were part of an ecosystem, and although killing all the birds would leave our cars clean, we would upset natures' balance.
"Don't you see son, the end of clean cars does not justify the means."
"By the way, where were you going?"
"I'm going to get a flu shot".
"Really, in Vietnam alone they have killed over 150,000 ducks because of this flu".
"Were they infected?"
"A few, to be sure, but all we're killed, just in case. The end, no human pandemic, justifies the means."
"Well in one case you say it does not and in the other you say it does, how can I tell?"
"I guess it boils down to what your conscience allows. Are you being selfish or are you doing an ugly thing which you may not like but understand needs to be done."
"Can we kill humans who are suspected to have an infection?"
"No, we can violate their human rights and quarantine them ( Ends justify the means), but they have souls which need to be respected"
"what is a soul, where is mine?"
"One cannot see nor detect a soul, you just must have faith that it is there. This is what makes us unique from other animals."
"Well, how do you know it is actually there?"
"The Bible tells us"
"Who wrote the Bible?"
"Men, but inspired by God"
"How do you know this?"
"Faith"
"Seems that rather than accepting an absolute philsophy that the ends don't justify the means you only make the circumstance in which humans are involved immutable. This based on some man-made book by some God you arbitrarily believe in. You don't seem like a man of principle, but a man who justifies by convenience. People, no. Animals, yes.
"Not always, the are unique exceptions"
"You mean like when to torture prisoners?"
"Well, I guess so. Certain people have information that can turn a conflict around."
"I read on the interweb that torture does not work."
"Does not work? Then why the hell would they use it? Are you saying that people who do are just Sadists looking for a thrill? Listen, son, the Abu Grabass thing is just a politicians game, all that was done there was already illegal. Hell the UK boys joined in, too. Both parties are going to be punished.
Obviously torture works in selected situations or else no one would use it."
"Well when should we be able to torture?"
"Whenever the information you can gain is enough to assure your conscience that it was the right thing to do. It is a judgemnet call.
"Besides, do you recall Clinton? He got a few blowjobs and we had to deal with that saga for years. A major "who cares" politicians story. If you legislate "torture" in a very specific and clearly defined way, the actual accusation of torture will pale in comparison to the the specious accusations of such. It will become just another political tool. Just like there is a gray in which torture may be justifiable or not, there is a gray area regarding what is torture and what is not.
Just like the Arabic countries unilaterally approve any anti-Israel proposition, there will be those who will constantly harass the US based on their agendas.
It is best to be call shots as you see fit, rather than be externally judged. Such agreements benefit small countries who cannot stand on their own, and not for countries who can call the shots with little effective disincentive. "
I'm justifying nothing, merely pointing out that our Congress included that language in 1994 as a condition of ratification, for which purpose I cannot claim to know.
Bet you can give a good guess, but.
Unless of course so much spinning makes one too dizzy to interpret the obvious.
Did you feel even remotely embarrased when you hit the "Submit Reply" button. One can only hope so.
Why?
I would not have signed the treaty, much less inserted the caveat.
I would not attempt to obscure my intent by signing "in good faith", then undercutting any moral advantage by stooping to such a tactic.
You may think me crass for denouncing Kyoto, too, but I wouldn't have signed, as Clinton did, then fail to provide the political stewardship to force ratification in my Congress (which ratification would not have succeeded, in any case); his show of support for Kyoto was for no purpose whatsoever apart from gathering whatever political capital accrued to himself alone.
For such acumen he was applauded internationally as a visionary.
Such attitudes and tactics are cheap, and, in the specific case of Kyoto, Clinton's benefit was threefold: He is remembered as (1) the American President who "cared" about the environment, (2) his legacy does not suffer for Kyoto having actually been ratified, because he didn't believe in it to begin with, and (3) he knew his successor (in the case of Gore) would see that it wasn't ratified either, or (in the case of a Republican-Bush) would disavow it and be seen by the world as indifferent to the environment at best.
Let me pose a question, a la Hobbes:
If it were known the U.S. possessed a proprietary concoction that would induce any detainee to purge himself of every last detail of intelligence to which he was privy, and the unilateral use of this substance was so effective as to allow the total and indiscriminate extermination of all terrorists (with no collateral damage) by the U.S. in, say, two years, would you look upon this as a favorable development?
JPaul
11-29-2005, 08:17 AM
It is best to be call shots as you see fit, rather than be externally judged. Such agreements benefit small countries who cannot stand on their own, and not for countries who can call the shots with little effective disincentive.
So you have moved from "the end justifies the means" to "might is right".
Torture is still wrong, in spite of any long winded cliché you feel can justify it.
JPaul
11-29-2005, 08:22 AM
Bet you can give a good guess, but.
Unless of course so much spinning makes one too dizzy to interpret the obvious.
Did you feel even remotely embarrased when you hit the "Submit Reply" button. One can only hope so.
Why?
I would not have signed the treaty, much less inserted the caveat.
I would not attempt to obscure my intent by signing "in good faith", then undercutting any moral advantage by stooping to such a tactic.
You may think me crass for denouncing Kyoto, too, but I wouldn't have signed, as Clinton did, then fail to provide the political stewardship to force ratification in my Congress (which ratification would not have succeeded, in any case); his show of support for Kyoto was for no purpose whatsoever apart from gathering whatever political capital accrued to himself alone.
For such acumen he was applauded internationally as a visionary.
Such attitudes and tactics are cheap, and, in the specific case of Kyoto, Clinton's benefit was threefold: He is remembered as (1) the American President who "cared" about the environment, (2) his legacy does not suffer for Kyoto having actually been ratified, because he didn't believe in it to begin with, and (3) he knew his successor (in the case of Gore) would see that it wasn't ratified either, or (in the case of a Republican-Bush) would disavow it and be seen by the world as indifferent to the environment at best.
Let me pose a question, a la Hobbes:
If it were known the U.S. possessed a proprietary concoction that would induce any detainee to purge himself of every last detail of intelligence to which he was privy, and the unilateral use of this substance was so effective as to allow the total and indiscriminate extermination of all terrorists (with no collateral damage) by the U.S. in, say, two years, would you look upon this as a favorable development?
What a fascinating post, the bulk of which has nothing to do with the issue.
Did I mention that torture was immoral. I thought you should know that, and possibly reflect on the fact that it is totally opposed to any possible interpretation of the Christian ethic.
Did I mention that torture was immoral. I thought you should know that, and possibly reflect on the fact that it is totally opposed to any possible interpretation of the Christian ethic.
Many things in and around this issue (torture, yes?) can be argued as immoral, including the war itself, terrorism, slashing of throats, I.E.D.s...
Odd that, as our government is precluded from any such by steely enforcement of the peculiar separation of church and state, that we decide Christian ethics are the basis of an enlightened (and, in all other considerations and circumstances, secular) document of "international authorship.
Better, perhaps, that you say something on the order of "It just ain't right."
Are we are to denounce such immorality at every turn, or reserving our umbrage solely for the U.S.?
Busyman
11-29-2005, 01:38 PM
Did I mention that torture was immoral. I thought you should know that, and possibly reflect on the fact that it is totally opposed to any possible interpretation of the Christian ethic.
Many things in and around this issue (torture, yes?) can be argued as immoral, including the war itself, terrorism, slashing of throats, I.E.D.s...
....punching someone, kicking someone, using harsh language...:dry:
Odd that, as our government is precluded from any such by steely enforcement of the peculiar separation of church and state, that we decide Christian ethics are the basis of an enlightened (and, in all other considerations and circumstances, secular) document of "international authorship.
Better, perhaps, that you say something on the order of "It just ain't right."
Are we are to denounce such immorality at every turn, or reserving our umbrage solely for the U.S.?
You took the words right outta my mouth. Wtf is this..."it's immoral" crap?
JP needs to vote to disband his military then.:ermm:
hobbes
11-29-2005, 02:39 PM
It is best to be call shots as you see fit, rather than be externally judged. Such agreements benefit small countries who cannot stand on their own, and not for countries who can call the shots with little effective disincentive.
So you have moved from "the end justifies the means" to "might is right".
Torture is still wrong, in spite of any long winded cliché you feel can justify it.
The "might is right" quip is specious, but you know that. Are you a matador at all, waving a red cape around as a distraction.
You think torture is wrong, which does not make it wrong.
You say the ends don't justify the means, but obviously medical research shows us that we do it anyway and the Earth is a safer, healthier and more secure place for it.
In order to perform research on animals one must submit a proposal and agree to provide certain standards of treatment, a committee then uses their judgement in providing approval or denial.
I use examples to illustrate my point. You simply repeat that torture is wrong and the ends don't justify the means as if simple repetition will make them true.
Reminds me of that old Catholic slogan, "1 billion people can't be wrong!". As if sheer numbers could create reality.
But isn't the whole torture thing a bit of a non-issue JP. After all, "Thou shall not kill" would really preclude you from sanctioning any war under any circumstance or any justification.
People talk a good game, but when reality slaps you in the face, the animal tends to answer.
JPaul
11-29-2005, 06:24 PM
Did I mention that torture was immoral. I thought you should know that, and possibly reflect on the fact that it is totally opposed to any possible interpretation of the Christian ethic.
Many things in and around this issue (torture, yes?) can be argued as immoral, including the war itself, terrorism, slashing of throats, I.E.D.s...
Odd that, as our government is precluded from any such by steely enforcement of the peculiar separation of church and state, that we decide Christian ethics are the basis of an enlightened (and, in all other considerations and circumstances, secular) document of "international authorship.
Better, perhaps, that you say something on the order of "It just ain't right."
Are we are to denounce such immorality at every turn, or reserving our umbrage solely for the U.S.?
The fact that other things are immoral is irrelevant. The fact it is the US who reserves it's right to torture is irrelevant.
Of course we denounce immorality at every turn. Whether it be the US, The UK, or any group or individual.
JPaul
11-29-2005, 06:28 PM
Many things in and around this issue (torture, yes?) can be argued as immoral, including the war itself, terrorism, slashing of throats, I.E.D.s...
....punching someone, kicking someone, using harsh language...:dry:
Odd that, as our government is precluded from any such by steely enforcement of the peculiar separation of church and state, that we decide Christian ethics are the basis of an enlightened (and, in all other considerations and circumstances, secular) document of "international authorship.
Better, perhaps, that you say something on the order of "It just ain't right."
Are we are to denounce such immorality at every turn, or reserving our umbrage solely for the U.S.?
Wtf is this..."it's immoral" crap?
JP needs to vote to disband his military then.:ermm:
Which part of torture is immoral do you find difficult to understand.
Oh indeed, I don't want the military to torture prisoners, therefore I want to disband it. Let's all look up non sequitur in the dictionary children.
Busyman
11-29-2005, 06:36 PM
Wtf is this..."it's immoral" crap?
JP needs to vote to disband his military then.:ermm:
Which part of torture is immoral do you find difficult to understand.
Oh indeed, I don't want the military to torture prisoners, therefore I want to disband it. Let's all look up non sequitur in the dictionary children.
Actually my answer to "It's immoral" is..."So the fuck what"?
Shooting a fella is immoral.
The law should be changed. Imagine a convention signed that disallowed the use of guns in war. :dabs:
If we are not part of the treaty what would you say then? Torture is immoral? Maybe you should take a look at your military. They are of the highest moral standard for...killers.:ermm:
JPaul
11-29-2005, 06:40 PM
I use examples to illustrate my point. You simply repeat that torture is wrong and the ends don't justify the means as if simple repetition will make them true.
Perhaps you don't read things, that may be the problem. It's really not just me who thinks it's wrong.
There was this treaty, which said that torture was wrong, loads of countries signed up to it. The US was one of them. I provided a few links to it.
The US ratified the treaty, with a wee caveat, saying that since torture being wrong was linked to your constitution (see earlier posts) then it was OK to torture Johhny Foreigner if he wasn't in the US. As far as I am aware no-one else has this so US citizens are fine. Then the US made the stunning decision to keep it's prisoners outside of the US.
So, The US Constitution, International Treaty (signed by the US) and me, not really just me then. Probably some others too, but I think you get the picture.
JPaul
11-29-2005, 06:45 PM
Which part of torture is immoral do you find difficult to understand.
Oh indeed, I don't want the military to torture prisoners, therefore I want to disband it. Let's all look up non sequitur in the dictionary children.
Actually my answer to "It's immoral" is..."So the fuck what"?
Shooting a fella is immoral.
The law should be changed. Imagine a convention signed that disallowed the use of guns in war. :dabs:
If are not part of the convention what would you say then? Torture is immoral? Maybe you should take a look at your military. They are of the highest moral standard for...killers.:ermm:
Actually "immoral" is taken to mean something along the lines of "contrary to accepted moral principles"
So, given that torture is contrary to said principals, see my last post, torture is immoral.
Murder would also be immoral, however shooting a fella during war and in combat conditions would not.
It's back to you using words and having a different meaning for them.
Busyman
11-29-2005, 06:50 PM
Actually my answer to "It's immoral" is..."So the fuck what"?
Shooting a fella is immoral.
The law should be changed. Imagine a convention signed that disallowed the use of guns in war. :dabs:
If are not part of the convention what would you say then? Torture is immoral? Maybe you should take a look at your military. They are of the highest moral standard for...killers.:ermm:
Actually "immoral" is taken to mean something along the lines of "contrary to accepted moral principles"
So, given that torture is contrary to said principals, see my last post, torture is immoral.
Murder would also be immoral, however shooting a fella during war and in combat conditions would not.
It's back to you using words and having a different meaning for them.
Excellent. Keeping some fella awake for interrogation is contrary to JP's accepted moral principles but shooting someone is not.
I understand now.
I think this case is closed folks.
JPaul
11-29-2005, 07:06 PM
Actually "immoral" is taken to mean something along the lines of "contrary to accepted moral principles"
So, given that torture is contrary to said principals, see my last post, torture is immoral.
Murder would also be immoral, however shooting a fella during war and in combat conditions would not.
It's back to you using words and having a different meaning for them.
Excellent. Keeping some fella awake for interrogation is contrary to JP's accepted moral principles but shooting someone is not.
I understand now.
I think this case is closed folks.
Is keeping someone awake considered torture, I haven't looked into it. Wouldn't that depend on how long for, how it was done and various other factors.
Oh and like hobbes you seem to think that I wrote the treaty you signed up to and your Constitution. I didn't, honest.
JPaul
11-29-2005, 07:11 PM
Sleep Deprivation
Going without sleep is intensely stressful, with unpredictable short and long-term effects. People lose the ability to act and think coherently. And as it leaves no physical mark on the victim, the interrogator can claim that they never laid a finger on those in their charge.
John Schlapobersky, consultant psychotherapist to the Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture, was himself tortured through sleep deprivation, in his case in apartheid South Africa in the 1960s.
"I was kept without sleep for a week in all. I can remember the details of the experience, although it took place 35 years ago. After two nights without sleep, the hallucinations start, and after three nights, people are having dreams while fairly awake, which is a form of psychosis.
"By the week's end, people lose their orientation in place and time - the people you're speaking to become people from your past; a window might become a view of the sea seen in your younger days. To deprive someone of sleep is to tamper with their equilibrium and their sanity."
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3376951.stm
hobbes, does the above seem about right to you. The BBC are normally a fairly reliable source.
I'm confused, is there a caveat in the version of the treaty that America ratified or was that a lie?
JPaul
11-29-2005, 07:45 PM
I'm confused, is there a caveat in the version of the treaty that America ratified or was that a lie?
As I understand it The Senate linked the treaty to the US Constitution (which already disallows torture). However they noted that the Constitution only related to US citizens, or people in the US. They stated that since this was the case then the treaty was also lilkewise limited.
Therefore, foreign citizens, not being held in the US, were not protected by the treaty. However as I understand it no-one else has the same provision, so US citizens are protected wherever they are.
Which means, in essence they agreed that torture (and inhumane and degrading treatment) was wrong. However they left it open to keeping prisoners outside of the US, cancelling the very treaty they agreed to. Geography > Human Rights, apparently.
I'm sure someone will corect this if I've misunderstood.
hobbes
11-29-2005, 08:36 PM
Perhaps you don't read things, that may be the problem. It's really not just me who thinks it's wrong.
There was this treaty, which said that torture was wrong, loads of countries signed up to it. The US was one of them. I provided a few links to it.
.
So the treaty is already signed?
So what is the point of signing another one? That was my point. The rules are already in place, you just need to enforce them.
Like you pointed out before, just because murder will be committed, regardless the laws, this does not mean we should not make it the law.
Well, murder is not murder.
The law does NOT read that you cannot kill another, no exceptions, it is broken down to take into account special circumstances.
1st degree is premeditated murder
2nd degree
3rd degree
manslaughter
self-defense.
See a blanket law would prevent a man from acting in self defense and make him guilty of murder with the maximal penalty.
Why make a blanket law which no one has any intention of following. It become just another piece of paper.
Self defense is the ultimate challenge of means justifying the ends. We all know we would save ourselves.
If you look at my exceptions for allowing torture they are very close to "self defense". The scenarios depict an us versus them, one of us is going to die situation.
Hence the "wiggle room" I think our military wants.
In our society people to kill others and face no crime charges in very special situations, such special situations are analogous to the times I could justify, to myself, the use of torture.
Blanket treaties are very nice political gestures, but they in no way effect reality.
Blanket laws are very restrictive because they fail to reflect conditionality.
But you can't decide whether something was committed in self defence without a trial, where I assume you would have to prove to a jury that you were genuinely in immediate danger. If you can't prove it then you're up for murder. Btw is self defence a classification of murder in the US (or the UK) or is it actually a mitigating circumstance? i.e. would you be found guilty of murder in self defence or acquitted of murder?
I think torture should fall under the same category, i.e. you must prove that the person you tortured was an immediate threat to your safety. (Frankly i think it would be a stretch to come up with a realistic scenario where this is the case.) If you can't prove they were an immediate threat then there were alternative measures you could have taken and I think its right that you're in the poo.
This treaty lacks any definition/address of terrorists or their activities
In past threads, members have attempted to denounce reported events at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as violations of the Geneva Convention.
This (as I've pointed out many times) constitutes a failure of understanding so basic as to defy description.
The rights granted to captured troops by the Geneva Convention (read closely, now) apply to those who have accepted the TERMS of the Geneva Convention.
The Convention does not apply to people who aren't troops, and who blatantly violate the entire framework of that convention.
Those who wish to extend such protections beyond the stated purview of such documents have some work to do; the 1994 treaty doesn't address the unique status of terrorists, either.
Merely wishing for others to behave in a fashion one deems moral does not constitute a binding arrangement, and the idea of unenumerated or "intended" protections in such a document is, indeed, errant.
JPaul
11-29-2005, 09:16 PM
Perhaps you don't read things, that may be the problem. It's really not just me who thinks it's wrong.
There was this treaty, which said that torture was wrong, loads of countries signed up to it. The US was one of them. I provided a few links to it.
.
So the treaty is already signed?
So what is the point of signing another one? That was my point. The rules are already in place, you just need to enforce them.
Like you pointed out before, just because murder will be committed, regardless the laws, this does not mean we should not make it the law.
Well, murder is not murder.
The law does NOT read that you cannot kill another, no exceptions, it is broken down to take into account special circumstances.
1st degree is premeditated murder
2nd degree
3rd degree
manslaughter
self-defense.
See a blanket law would prevent a man from acting in self defense and make him guilty of murder with the maximal penalty.
Why make a blanket law which no one has any intention of following. It become just another piece of paper.
Self defense is the ultimate challenge of means justifying the ends. We all know we would save ourselves.
If you look at my exceptions for allowing torture they are very close to "self defense". The scenarios depict an us versus them, one of us is going to die situation.
Hence the "wiggle room" I think our military wants.
In our society people to kill others and face no crime charges in very special situations, such special situations are analogous to the times I could justify, to myself, the use of torture.
Blanket treaties are very nice political gestures, but they in no way effect reality.
Blanket laws are very restrictive because they fail to reflect conditionality.
The new "treaty" isn't a treaty, it's an amendment to US appropriations bill 2006. I did post some links. It re-iterates what which is already in the treaty (I think that bit is just politicing)
However it would do 2 other thing (at least).
It removes the preposterous location thing and it clarifies things for your military people. It says that, so long as they stay within the terms of their interrogation manual, then as far as the US is concerned they are not torturing people.
McCain Amendment in the final version of the FY 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill
SEC. __. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
* (a) IN GENERAL.--No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
* (b) APPLICABILITY.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.
* (c) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.
SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
* (a) IN GENERAL.--No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
* (b) CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.
* (c) LIMITATION OF SUPERSEDER.--The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.
* (d) CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT DEFINED.--In this section, the term ''cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment'' means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.
From http://www.phrusa.org/research/torture/mccain_text.html
Nobody is saying that you shouldn't interrogate people. Just that you shouldn't torture them. It's already in your Constitution
JPaul
11-29-2005, 09:24 PM
This treaty lacks any definition/address of terrorists or their activities
In past threads, members have attempted to denounce reported events at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as violations of the Geneva Convention.
This (as I've pointed out many times) constitutes a failure of understanding so basic as to defy description.
The rights granted to captured troops by the Geneva Convention (read closely, now) apply to those who have accepted the TERMS of the Geneva Convention.
The Convention does not apply to people who aren't troops, and who blatantly violate the entire framework of that convention.
Those who wish to extend such protections beyond the stated purview of such documents have some work to do; the 1994 treaty doesn't address the unique status of terrorists, either.
Merely wishing for others to behave in a fashion one deems moral does not constitute a binding arrangement, and the idea of unenumerated or "intended" protections in such a document is, indeed, errant.
The treaty on torture, as I understand it, makes no such distinction.
It does not, as I understand it, make comment on the crimes people are alleged to have commited. It makes no comment on whether an organization has agreed to anything. It simply prohibits certain actions.
In addition, you cannot have things both ways. They are either soldiers or criminals. I say they are criminals, I have said so in the past. You therefore have a presumption of innocence. You are therefore torturing the innocent. WTF happened to due process.
Almost forgot to comment on the caveat stuff. I've been reading up a bit on it (as well as JPaul's link) and I'm of the opinion that the US ratified the treaty completely, i.e. there was no caveat. This talk of linking it to the constitution has no bearing on the content of the treaty which, since it clearly addresses torture to foreigners in foreign countries, means that the US is clearly in breach.
Anyway the treaty is binding regardless of whether you sign it or not, as its part of customary international law (along with certain other human rights treaties) so whether the US actually even wanted a caveat is neither here nor there (in terms of its impact on international law). Apparently any act of torture anywhere in the world is a crime. If it is conducted while in a state of war it is a war crime, else it is a crime against humanity
Amnesty usa havea page
http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/law.html
which gives some nice background to the treaty, but doesn't address the specific legal get out clauses used.
Rat Faced
11-29-2005, 10:03 PM
If it were known the U.S. possessed a proprietary concoction that would induce any detainee to purge himself of every last detail of intelligence to which he was privy, and the unilateral use of this substance was so effective as to allow the total and indiscriminate extermination of all terrorists (with no collateral damage) by the U.S. in, say, two years, would you look upon this as a favorable development?
Some people cannot get it through their heads that killing terrorists creates martyrs and more terrorists... despite the Whitehouse/CIA's own figures backing up this fact both by number of terrorist attacks and estimated number of terrorists.
Go figure...
Re: The Geneva Convention.
Your wrong j2k4..
The signatories agree to treat everyone, whether they are a signatory or not, according to the convention.
The most notable was in WWII...
Japan was not a signatory, and did not treat their prisoners according to it.
The allies were, yet still treated Japanese POWs according to the convention.
As for current stuff:
attorneys
Prisoners of war must have the right to legal advice, particularly in the case of preparing powers of attorney and wills. ( Convention III, Art. 77)
The same applies to civilian internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 113 )
Military commanders must have access to legal advisers to instruct them on the application of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 82)
They have to be one or the other... yet no attorneys.
baths
Prisoners of war must have access to baths and showers, as well as sufficient soap and water for personal toilets and for laundry. Women prisoners must have separate facilities. ( Convention III, Art. 29)
The above also applies to internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 85 )
canteens
All prisoner of war camps must have canteens where prisoners can get food, soap, tobacco and other everyday items. Prices may not be higher than in the surrounding area. Any profits must be set aside for the benefit of the prisoners. (Convention III, Art. 28)
Similarly, internees must have access to canteens, unless equivalent facilities are already available. Profits must be set aside for the benefit of the internees. (Convention IV, Art. 87)
carpet bombing
Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. If it becomes apparent that an objective is not a military one, or if an attack is expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects then the attack must be canceled or suspended. (Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)
An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)
censorship
Letters written by prisoners may be censored but a detaining power cannot use the excuse of not having enough translators to limit the number of letters that prisoners are allowed, unless the protecting power agrees. (Convention III, Art. 71)
The censoring must take place as quickly as possible by the dispatching state and the receiving state, and only once by each. The examination of packages must take place in the presence of a prisoner or a prisoner’s chosen representative. Any prohibition of correspondence must be temporary and as short as possible. (Convention III, Art. 76)
Similar guidelines apply to internees’ mail. (Convention IV, Art. 112)
Letters written by captured chaplains may be censored. (Convention III, Art. 35)
chemical weapons
Prohibited under the 1925 Geneva Protocol
civil defense
An occupying power may not change the structure of these organizations in any way that interferes with their functioning, or compel its personnel to carry out other tasks. (Protocol I, Art. 63, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)
civilian immunity
Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.
They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.
Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.
The taking of hostages is prohibited.
Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.
Sentences and executions without a judgment from a regularly constituted court and without benefit of the standard judicial guarantees are prohibited. (Convention IV, Art. 3)
See civilian population, women, murder, rape, torture, discrimination, civilian property, places of worship, cultural objects, grave breaches, and indiscriminate bombing to start with.
civilian objects
Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)
civilian
A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)
Want me to go on??
The USA is currently breaking the Geneva Convention left, right and centre... you might as well withdraw from it to avoid confusion. There are political parties here already suggesting we leave it.
However, whether your in it or not will not change how your troops/civilians are treated by anyone... it gives you guidance on how you treat others.
You cannot sign on another countries behalf ffs.
If it were known the U.S. possessed a proprietary concoction that would induce any detainee to purge himself of every last detail of intelligence to which he was privy, and the unilateral use of this substance was so effective as to allow the total and indiscriminate extermination of all terrorists (with no collateral damage) by the U.S. in, say, two years, would you look upon this as a favorable development?
Some people cannot get it through their heads that killing terrorists creates martyrs and more terrorists... despite the Whitehouse/CIA's own figures backing up this fact both by number of terrorist attacks and estimated number of terrorists.
There will always be residual effect, but in the name of rooting out even the inclination to terrorist behavior, martyrdom might even be regarded as a positive, Rat.
I believe we will eventually get to the bottom of that particular barrel in any case, and I frankly don't care a whit how many join the "cause"; I think they should all be wiped out with the sort of prejudice the Palestinians normally reserve for the Israelis.
I hope that's clear enough for you.
Go figure...
Re: The Geneva Convention.
Your wrong j2k4..
The signatories agree to treat everyone, whether they are a signatory or not, according to the convention.
Not true, sorry.
The most notable was in WWII...
Japan was not a signatory, and did not treat their prisoners according to it.
The allies were, yet still treated Japanese POWs according to the convention.
Owing chiefly to the fact the U.S. was home to many Japanese immigrants and possibly out of a sense of decency.
In any case, they were citizens of a normally recognized nation, whose government could eventually held to account for it's behavior.
That we did not maltreat Japanese POWs during WWII cannot be construed to mean we were bound by the Geneva Convention.
Again, not true, sorry.
Busyman
11-30-2005, 12:00 AM
If it were known the U.S. possessed a proprietary concoction that would induce any detainee to purge himself of every last detail of intelligence to which he was privy, and the unilateral use of this substance was so effective as to allow the total and indiscriminate extermination of all terrorists (with no collateral damage) by the U.S. in, say, two years, would you look upon this as a favorable development?
Some people cannot get it through their heads that killing terrorists creates martyrs and more terrorists... despite the Whitehouse/CIA's own figures backing up this fact both by number of terrorist attacks and estimated number of terrorists.
Go figure...
Re: The Geneva Convention.
Your wrong j2k4..
The signatories agree to treat everyone, whether they are a signatory or not, according to the convention.
The most notable was in WWII...
Japan was not a signatory, and did not treat their prisoners according to it.
The allies were, yet still treated Japanese POWs according to the convention.
As for current stuff:
attorneys
Prisoners of war must have the right to legal advice, particularly in the case of preparing powers of attorney and wills. ( Convention III, Art. 77)
The same applies to civilian internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 113 )
Military commanders must have access to legal advisers to instruct them on the application of the Geneva Conventions. ( Protocol I, Art. 82)
They have to be one or the other... yet no attorneys.
baths
Prisoners of war must have access to baths and showers, as well as sufficient soap and water for personal toilets and for laundry. Women prisoners must have separate facilities. ( Convention III, Art. 29)
The above also applies to internees. ( Convention IV, Art. 85 )
canteens
All prisoner of war camps must have canteens where prisoners can get food, soap, tobacco and other everyday items. Prices may not be higher than in the surrounding area. Any profits must be set aside for the benefit of the prisoners. (Convention III, Art. 28)
Similarly, internees must have access to canteens, unless equivalent facilities are already available. Profits must be set aside for the benefit of the internees. (Convention IV, Art. 87)
carpet bombing
Area bombardments and other indiscriminate attacks are forbidden. If it becomes apparent that an objective is not a military one, or if an attack is expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects then the attack must be canceled or suspended. (Protocol I, Art. 57, Sec. 2b)
An indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects and resulting in excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)
censorship
Letters written by prisoners may be censored but a detaining power cannot use the excuse of not having enough translators to limit the number of letters that prisoners are allowed, unless the protecting power agrees. (Convention III, Art. 71)
The censoring must take place as quickly as possible by the dispatching state and the receiving state, and only once by each. The examination of packages must take place in the presence of a prisoner or a prisoner’s chosen representative. Any prohibition of correspondence must be temporary and as short as possible. (Convention III, Art. 76)
Similar guidelines apply to internees’ mail. (Convention IV, Art. 112)
Letters written by captured chaplains may be censored. (Convention III, Art. 35)
chemical weapons
Prohibited under the 1925 Geneva Protocol
civil defense
An occupying power may not change the structure of these organizations in any way that interferes with their functioning, or compel its personnel to carry out other tasks. (Protocol I, Art. 63, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)
civilian immunity
Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.
They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.
Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.
The taking of hostages is prohibited.
Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.
Sentences and executions without a judgment from a regularly constituted court and without benefit of the standard judicial guarantees are prohibited. (Convention IV, Art. 3)
See civilian population, women, murder, rape, torture, discrimination, civilian property, places of worship, cultural objects, grave breaches, and indiscriminate bombing to start with.
civilian objects
Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)
civilian
A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)
Want me to go on??
The USA is currently breaking the Geneva Convention left, right and centre... you might as well withdraw from it to avoid confusion. There are political parties here already suggesting we leave it.
I must agree, unfortunately.
I rather our country pull out of the Convention rather than break it.
Most of the things in there I agree with. Some of it is outdated.
JPaul
11-30-2005, 12:08 AM
Yeah, "pull out" of the Geneva Convention, amend anti-torture treaties which you've already signed, to allow you to do what you want.
These things can be so flippin' troublesome.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.