US petition

[hobbes]

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.

I think that the issue boils down to the actual impact of this petition.

Will it prevent what happened at Abu Garab? No, that was already illegal.

Most of us scoff at it as a politicians game.

Being opposed to laws which prevent torture without exception does not mean one is "pro-torture" similar to people who are against anti-abortion laws are not pro-abortion.

Certain situations merit certain actions, which my conscience has no problem with, as I have given examples for in this thread.

I don't want absolute rules about when and where to torture, I just want our military leaders to be given the latitude to use the appropriate force necessary and for this to be at their discretion.

I think the Geneva Convention was a fine way for how to provide accomadation for the average soldier. It gives piece of mind to families, on both sides, that their sons are not in tiny cages being starved and beaten as a routine.

Nobody has any problem recognizing that Abu Garab was unacceptable and it wasn't the "rules" which permitted this, it was enforcement of the rules.

Torture, as I have defined in specific cases, will always occur, no matter the country, no matter the law.

We all have a gestalt of what is appropriate or defensible.

If we approve legislature that says "no" to torture, no exceptions, then the man who saves his fellow soldiers by inflicting pain on a suicide bomber to defuse his weapon has to deal with war crimes charges.

War presents unique opportunities, every country and it's citizens have a threshold which dictates what actions are defensible and which are inacceptable.

Why support something that is just a political game, that will tied the hands of those who need to get things done, perhaps in a way we don't want to think about.

So much is done by our countries by our sectret services, for the sake of our futures, that we don't know about. We have a sense something is going on, but we don't really want to know, lest we have to admit to our sins.

The US has placed many South American dictators in charge in the last century, that have been just as bad as Saddam. All countries are selfishly and cruelly looking out for themselves, we all know this, but pretend not to, just to think we are somehow civilized and clean.

Being "civilized" is a complete joke. Strip any man of those things he takes for granted- food, clothing, shelter, security and you will see the true animal bare his fangs.

There is nothing civilized about man, that is just an act we portray when we our basic needs are satisfied.

Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.

[Busyman]

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.

Fact of life.

[Agrajag]

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

Fact of life.

So are poverty and slavery. Let's try to stop them as well.

[Agrajag]

Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.

You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.

I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.

It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.

[Busyman]

Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.

You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.

I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.

It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.

Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.

I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.

You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.

[Agrajag]

You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.

I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.

It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.

Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.

I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.

There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.

The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.

[Busyman]

Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.

I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.

There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.

The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.

When is torture necessary?

[Rat Faced]

Never

Its counter-productive.

You hear what the guy getting tortured thinks u want to hear, so the pain stops.

He will say he's guilty, even if he's innocent... and give "intelligence" that is just as useful.

[Agrajag]

There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.

The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.

When is torture necessary?

You tell me, it's you that's saying it's necessary, not me.

[hobbes]

Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.

You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.

I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.

It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.

Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread. I suppose the Scottish chaps just like to make sweeping generalizations without proper statistical data.

Be assured that torture is actively practiced by all governments in times of conflict, despite what you have on your piece of paper.

Our example:

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.

Please answer this very specific question, which you have avoided about 5 or 6 times now.