US petition

[Mr JP Fugley]

Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.

There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.

But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.

[Busyman]

Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.

There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.

But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.

Cool.


I have your kids stashed somewhere and they are going to die in 4 hours. You have me prisoner.

What do you do?

There is a dirty bomb set to go off in Scotland in 4 hours. I know the location but fuck you, you bastard!!!

What do you do?

[Mr JP Fugley]

Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.

There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.

But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.

Cool.


I have your kids stashed somewhere and they are going to die in 4 hours. You have me prisoner.

What do you do?

There is a dirty bomb set to go off in Scotland in 4 hours. I know the location but fuck you, you bastard!!!

What do you do?

Phone Harry Callaghan, obviousement.

[Gripper]

It is easy to debate subjects,not quite so easy to keep thinking clearly while a friend bleeds to death as you try to hold him together.

True enough.

I am well aware, though, of people who have done this.

Their testimonies still fall to both sides of the issue.

I don't think one has to have been a soldier/combatant to have a valid debate, gripper; do you?

No,true enough but it tends to colour your thinking on such things.
Terrorists do not play by the geneva convention,no mercy and no quarter should be offered to them.
A martyr can't kill you.

[hobbes]

I am absolutely certain you do.

As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.

Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.

I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?

When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?

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.

It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.

Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.

The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.

It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.

I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.

I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.

[j2k4]

Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.

There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.

But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.

Noted; I was referring only to Al Qaeda and terrorists in general.

[j2k4]

True enough.

I am well aware, though, of people who have done this.

Their testimonies still fall to both sides of the issue.

I don't think one has to have been a soldier/combatant to have a valid debate, gripper; do you?

No,true enough but it tends to colour your thinking on such things.
Terrorists do not play by the geneva convention,no mercy and no quarter should be offered to them.
A martyr can't kill you.

Agreed, on all three points.

[Busyman]

I am absolutely certain you do.

As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.

Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.

I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?

When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?

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.

It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.

Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.

The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.

It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.

I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.

I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.

I stand by my initial stance. Torture is wrong.

[Mr JP Fugley]

I am absolutely certain you do.

As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.

Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.

I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?

When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?

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.

It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.

Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.

The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.

It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.

I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.

I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.

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 would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury." Are you Jack Nicholson at all.

[j2k4]

I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?

When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?

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.

It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.

Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.

The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.

It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.

I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.

I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.

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 would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury." Are you Jack Nicholson at all.

So, then.

Would using medical means to extract information be cheating, or not?

I feel being made to wait for your answer is unduly tortuous, and if you do not respond, I shall petition the U.N. for a resolution you may ignore for 10-12 years, at which point I'll attack you unilaterally.

Just so you know.