US petition

[Mr JP Fugley]

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

[j2k4]

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

Willdoo.

[hobbes]

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.

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.

[Busyman]

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.

[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.

[j2k4]

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?

[hobbes]

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.

[Busyman]

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.

[Busyman]

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.

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.

[Mr JP Fugley]

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.