US petition

On a more serious note .... let me think about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

On a more serious note .... let me think about that.

---

Willdoo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gripper103.2

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

" ....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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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

Quote:

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gripper103.2

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gripper103.2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JP

I stand by my initial stance. Torture is wrong. :snooty:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

[QUOTE=Mr JP Fugley]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

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.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JP

I stand by my initial stance. Torture is wrong. :snooty:

---

:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JP

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

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...