US petition

[Busyman]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[ilw]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)