US petition

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

"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 ?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Well that's a dumb question (with no ?).

---

Sorry, I don't understand.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:
CaptainObvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

:lol: :lol: :lol:
CaptainObvious.

---

I didn't understand what you said, so I said so. How is that :lol: :lol: :lol:

---

Smashing!!!:O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Smashing!!!:O

---

You will have 5000 posts in no time.

---

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 9,535

Thanks anyway....:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

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.

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:

Sorry, I should apologize to the rest of the board for my own spamming of this thread. Please delete my posts and Busyman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JP

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

I believe that many governments torture unnecessarily in MOST cases. I will never say that it's never necessary, however.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JP

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JP

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

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.

Can someone tell me what constitutes "torture" in the eyes of the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hobbes

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.