US petition

[hobbes]

[QUOTE=Mr JP Fugley]

Your point seems to be that it is OK for your State to torture in order to gain military intelligence, so long as they don't get caught. Your argument also reads that it is such a useful weapon that the "good" it does outweighs the fact that it is wrong. I and the EU disagree, however we also disagree on various other things, so that's OK. If you (plural) choose to torture your prisoners it is a matter for you, however you must see that it makes you no better than them.



And again you make value judgements on it. Our torture is OK because we gain intelligence from it. Theirs is not because .... what you said. You are making it a one way street, you are saying that torture isOK so long as it's torture which the US approves of. Frayed knot, old bean. If you say that States can torture under certain circumstances, then it's up to the State to decide on the circumstances, not you. Unless you have an agreement on that, but you decided the agreement didn't count.

"That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread." I don't really understand, why does it not apply here.

.

I'm not saying that it is "ok" if they are not caught. I'm saying that certain situations will arise in which they will do it anyway. Despite repercussions, if caught. I am placing philosphy to the side and acknowledging the animals that we are. This is admitting that it does happen, it is saying that under certain circumstances I can understand why it was done. That does not mean that it is a "good thing" or that I encourage a good stealthy ass beating.

I have outlined specific examples in which it would be ok, to my conscience, to torture. I have clearly stated why the use of torture at both Abu Garab AND the given example involving US Military soldiers was inappropriate.

I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?

The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it.

I see no obligation for a unilateral application. But when the general public found out what was going on at Abu Garab, the overwhelming reaction I noted State-side was extreme disappointment. Our dirty laundry, cut and dry, out there for the whole world to look at and re-enforce people beliefs or alienate allies. Stupid fucking Americans, no better than Saddam. Americans have a sense of what is appropriate and we should definitely be better than that.

And again, even in the presence of your fancy documents and both sides fully voicing agreement about upholding the Geneva convention to the letter, torture still occurs, but the incidence is far lower because any documented violation would have serious consequences, such as war crimes convictions.

I'm not FOR torture, I don't enjoy it, but I do admit that in certain circumstances it is a necessary evil. This has been clearly illustrated. You would stand by while your fellow soldiers were being blown to bits and I would be inflicting major pain upon my enemy. After all, he is a suicide bomber, he wants to die. No discussion will help, you need to talk to him in a language he can understand--pain.

I'm getting mine out alive and you can stand their with your crisp document explaining how what you did was the right thing to do.



I have also clearly stated that one must determine an acceptable standard of taking care of the grunts (common soldier). I am against the systematic beating, starving, terrorizing and humilating soldiers out of spite or hatred. Put them in a cell and treat them as we treat our own inmates. That care should be independent of what the other side is doing. Torturing their grunts in no way aides our cause. That would take us down to their level.

They shoot at us and kill our soldiers, we shoot back and kill theirs. That makes us no better than them either, but I suppose we'll keep shooting.

[Mr JP Fugley]

j2

Sorry, but I just don't know enough about it.

How are drugs administered.

What are the immediate, mid term and long effects of the drugs used.

Do they cause physical damage.

Do they cause emotional damage.

Sorry I just don't know, but I will opine when I can.

[Rat Faced]

The thing about torture, which is probably the main reason it stopped being used in the "Civilised Countries"... is that you get to hear what the guy being tortured thinks you want to hear, which is not necessarily the truth.

You therefore go and get the next guy thats been implicated by a bad method of information gathering and the cycle goes on.

You follow false leads and torture totally innocent people.


Then some nice big country comes along and changes the regime because you used those methods... (after their first "reason" is found to be false) and then you find they are doing the same thing.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I'm not saying that it is "ok" if they are not caught. I'm saying that certain situations will arise in which they will do it anyway. Despite repercussions, if caught. I am placing philosphy to the side and acknowledging the animals that we are. This is admitting that it does happen, it is saying that under certain circumstances I can understand why it was done. That does not mean that it is a "good thing" or that I encourage a good stealthy ass beating.

I have outlined specific examples in which it would be ok, to my conscience, to torture. I have clearly stated why the use of torture at both Abu Garab AND the given example involving US Military soldiers was inappropriate.

I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?

The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it.

I see no obligation for a unilateral application. But when the general public found out what was going on at Abu Garab, the overwhelming reaction I noted State-side was extreme disappointment. Our dirty laundry, cut and dry, out there for the whole world to look at and re-enforce people beliefs or alienate allies. Stupid fucking Americans, no better than Saddam. Americans have a sense of what is appropriate and we should definitely be better than that.

And again, even in the presence of your fancy documents and both sides fully voicing agreement about upholding the Geneva convention to the letter, torture still occurs, but the incidence is far lower because any documented violation would have serious consequences, such as war crimes convictions.

I'm not FOR torture, I don't enjoy it, but I do admit that in certain circumstances it is a necessary evil. This has been clearly illustrated. You would stand by while your fellow soldiers were being blown to bits and I would be inflicting major pain upon my enemy. After all, he is a suicide bomber, he wants to die. No discussion will help, you need to talk to him in a language he can understand--pain.

I'm getting mine out alive and you can stand their with your crisp document explaining how what you did was the right thing to do.



I have also clearly stated that one must determine an acceptable standard of taking care of the grunts (common soldier). I am against the systematic beating, starving, terrorizing and humilating soldiers out of spite or hatred. Put them in a cell and treat them as we treat our own inmates. That care should be independent of what the other side is doing. Torturing their grunts in no way aides our cause. That would take us down to their level.

They shoot at us and kill our soldiers, we shoot back and kill theirs. That makes us no better than them either, but I suppose we'll keep shooting.

Gotcha, it's OK to torture certain people.

If they are not soldiers then they are criminals. Is it OK to torture all criminals, or just some. Who's deciding this time.

If we aren't torturing the "grunts" can we torture the soldiers who may have specific intelligence that can help us. Say we capture a General, can we torture her.

"I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?" Sorry, I missed the meeting where we agreed that you (plural) got to say when torture was OK. How did the vote go.

"The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it." We did, does it not count when the other country didn't.

[Busyman]

I'm not saying that it is "ok" if they are not caught. I'm saying that certain situations will arise in which they will do it anyway. Despite repercussions, if caught. I am placing philosphy to the side and acknowledging the animals that we are. This is admitting that it does happen, it is saying that under certain circumstances I can understand why it was done. That does not mean that it is a "good thing" or that I encourage a good stealthy ass beating.

I have outlined specific examples in which it would be ok, to my conscience, to torture. I have clearly stated why the use of torture at both Abu Garab AND the given example involving US Military soldiers was inappropriate.

I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?

The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it.

I see no obligation for a unilateral application. But when the general public found out what was going on at Abu Garab, the overwhelming reaction I noted State-side was extreme disappointment. Our dirty laundry, cut and dry, out there for the whole world to look at and re-enforce people beliefs or alienate allies. Stupid fucking Americans, no better than Saddam. Americans have a sense of what is appropriate and we should definitely be better than that.

And again, even in the presence of your fancy documents and both sides fully voicing agreement about upholding the Geneva convention to the letter, torture still occurs, but the incidence is far lower because any documented violation would have serious consequences, such as war crimes convictions.

I'm not FOR torture, I don't enjoy it, but I do admit that in certain circumstances it is a necessary evil. This has been clearly illustrated. You would stand by while your fellow soldiers were being blown to bits and I would be inflicting major pain upon my enemy. After all, he is a suicide bomber, he wants to die. No discussion will help, you need to talk to him in a language he can understand--pain.

I'm getting mine out alive and you can stand their with your crisp document explaining how what you did was the right thing to do.



I have also clearly stated that one must determine an acceptable standard of taking care of the grunts (common soldier). I am against the systematic beating, starving, terrorizing and humilating soldiers out of spite or hatred. Put them in a cell and treat them as we treat our own inmates. That care should be independent of what the other side is doing. Torturing their grunts in no way aides our cause. That would take us down to their level.

They shoot at us and kill our soldiers, we shoot back and kill theirs. That makes us no better than them either, but I suppose we'll keep shooting.

I stand by my initial stance. Torture is wrong.

[Rat Faced]

I stand by my initial stance. Torture is wrong.

I concur.

I do believe that the current "reason" for the invasion was because Hussain used this... kettle/black

[ilw]

Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.

[Busyman]

Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.

Anyone who believes torture is new (or secret imprisonment) is an idiot. I'm sure America didn't just start doing it.

Again the bandwagon hypemobole is in full force. Some photos from Abu Grabass prison "surface" and people that that type of behavior "just started".

[Agrajag]

Anyone who believes torture is new (or secret imprisonment) is an idiot. I'm sure America didn't just start doing it.

Again the bandwagon hypemobole is in full force. Some photos from Abu Grabass prison "surface" and people that that type of behavior "just started".

That's OK well, if it's been going on for a while.

[j2k4]

Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.

What of the fact the Geneva Conventions were a charter for nations involved in war, and the inconvenient (for us, convenient for them) circumstance that Al Qaeda doesn't fit the mold?

Why shouldn't we, instead of hewing to or ignoring the Geneva Conventions, concoct a document tailored to terrorists?

Authorship could be left to the U.N.

Should be good for a larf or two...