US petition

[JPaul]

Did I mention that torture was immoral. I thought you should know that, and possibly reflect on the fact that it is totally opposed to any possible interpretation of the Christian ethic.

Many things in and around this issue (torture, yes?) can be argued as immoral, including the war itself, terrorism, slashing of throats, I.E.D.s...

Odd that, as our government is precluded from any such by steely enforcement of the peculiar separation of church and state, that we decide Christian ethics are the basis of an enlightened (and, in all other considerations and circumstances, secular) document of "international authorship.

Better, perhaps, that you say something on the order of "It just ain't right."

Are we are to denounce such immorality at every turn, or reserving our umbrage solely for the U.S.?

The fact that other things are immoral is irrelevant. The fact it is the US who reserves it's right to torture is irrelevant.

Of course we denounce immorality at every turn. Whether it be the US, The UK, or any group or individual.

[JPaul]

Many things in and around this issue (torture, yes?) can be argued as immoral, including the war itself, terrorism, slashing of throats, I.E.D.s...
....punching someone, kicking someone, using harsh language...

Odd that, as our government is precluded from any such by steely enforcement of the peculiar separation of church and state, that we decide Christian ethics are the basis of an enlightened (and, in all other considerations and circumstances, secular) document of "international authorship.

Better, perhaps, that you say something on the order of "It just ain't right."

Are we are to denounce such immorality at every turn, or reserving our umbrage solely for the U.S.?

Wtf is this..."it's immoral" crap?

JP needs to vote to disband his military then.

Which part of torture is immoral do you find difficult to understand.

Oh indeed, I don't want the military to torture prisoners, therefore I want to disband it. Let's all look up non sequitur in the dictionary children.

[Busyman]

Wtf is this..."it's immoral" crap?

JP needs to vote to disband his military then.

Which part of torture is immoral do you find difficult to understand.

Oh indeed, I don't want the military to torture prisoners, therefore I want to disband it. Let's all look up non sequitur in the dictionary children.

Actually my answer to "It's immoral" is..."So the fuck what"?

Shooting a fella is immoral.
The law should be changed. Imagine a convention signed that disallowed the use of guns in war.

If we are not part of the treaty what would you say then? Torture is immoral? Maybe you should take a look at your military. They are of the highest moral standard for...killers.

[JPaul]

I use examples to illustrate my point. You simply repeat that torture is wrong and the ends don't justify the means as if simple repetition will make them true.

Perhaps you don't read things, that may be the problem. It's really not just me who thinks it's wrong.

There was this treaty, which said that torture was wrong, loads of countries signed up to it. The US was one of them. I provided a few links to it.

The US ratified the treaty, with a wee caveat, saying that since torture being wrong was linked to your constitution (see earlier posts) then it was OK to torture Johhny Foreigner if he wasn't in the US. As far as I am aware no-one else has this so US citizens are fine. Then the US made the stunning decision to keep it's prisoners outside of the US.

So, The US Constitution, International Treaty (signed by the US) and me, not really just me then. Probably some others too, but I think you get the picture.

[JPaul]

Which part of torture is immoral do you find difficult to understand.

Oh indeed, I don't want the military to torture prisoners, therefore I want to disband it. Let's all look up non sequitur in the dictionary children.

Actually my answer to "It's immoral" is..."So the fuck what"?

Shooting a fella is immoral.
The law should be changed. Imagine a convention signed that disallowed the use of guns in war.

If are not part of the convention what would you say then? Torture is immoral? Maybe you should take a look at your military. They are of the highest moral standard for...killers.

Actually "immoral" is taken to mean something along the lines of "contrary to accepted moral principles"

So, given that torture is contrary to said principals, see my last post, torture is immoral.

Murder would also be immoral, however shooting a fella during war and in combat conditions would not.

It's back to you using words and having a different meaning for them.

[Busyman]

Actually my answer to "It's immoral" is..."So the fuck what"?

Shooting a fella is immoral.
The law should be changed. Imagine a convention signed that disallowed the use of guns in war.

If are not part of the convention what would you say then? Torture is immoral? Maybe you should take a look at your military. They are of the highest moral standard for...killers.

Actually "immoral" is taken to mean something along the lines of "contrary to accepted moral principles"

So, given that torture is contrary to said principals, see my last post, torture is immoral.

Murder would also be immoral, however shooting a fella during war and in combat conditions would not.

It's back to you using words and having a different meaning for them.

Excellent. Keeping some fella awake for interrogation is contrary to JP's accepted moral principles but shooting someone is not.

I understand now.

I think this case is closed folks.

[JPaul]

Actually "immoral" is taken to mean something along the lines of "contrary to accepted moral principles"

So, given that torture is contrary to said principals, see my last post, torture is immoral.

Murder would also be immoral, however shooting a fella during war and in combat conditions would not.

It's back to you using words and having a different meaning for them.

Excellent. Keeping some fella awake for interrogation is contrary to JP's accepted moral principles but shooting someone is not.

I understand now.

I think this case is closed folks.

Is keeping someone awake considered torture, I haven't looked into it. Wouldn't that depend on how long for, how it was done and various other factors.

Oh and like hobbes you seem to think that I wrote the treaty you signed up to and your Constitution. I didn't, honest.

[JPaul]

Sleep Deprivation

Going without sleep is intensely stressful, with unpredictable short and long-term effects. People lose the ability to act and think coherently. And as it leaves no physical mark on the victim, the interrogator can claim that they never laid a finger on those in their charge.


John Schlapobersky, consultant psychotherapist to the Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture, was himself tortured through sleep deprivation, in his case in apartheid South Africa in the 1960s.

"I was kept without sleep for a week in all. I can remember the details of the experience, although it took place 35 years ago. After two nights without sleep, the hallucinations start, and after three nights, people are having dreams while fairly awake, which is a form of psychosis.

"By the week's end, people lose their orientation in place and time - the people you're speaking to become people from your past; a window might become a view of the sea seen in your younger days. To deprive someone of sleep is to tamper with their equilibrium and their sanity."

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3376951.stm

hobbes, does the above seem about right to you. The BBC are normally a fairly reliable source.

[ilw]

I'm confused, is there a caveat in the version of the treaty that America ratified or was that a lie?

[JPaul]

I'm confused, is there a caveat in the version of the treaty that America ratified or was that a lie?

As I understand it The Senate linked the treaty to the US Constitution (which already disallows torture). However they noted that the Constitution only related to US citizens, or people in the US. They stated that since this was the case then the treaty was also lilkewise limited.

Therefore, foreign citizens, not being held in the US, were not protected by the treaty. However as I understand it no-one else has the same provision, so US citizens are protected wherever they are.

Which means, in essence they agreed that torture (and inhumane and degrading treatment) was wrong. However they left it open to keeping prisoners outside of the US, cancelling the very treaty they agreed to. Geography > Human Rights, apparently.

I'm sure someone will corect this if I've misunderstood.