US petition

[Busyman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Agrajag]

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]

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.