EPTI think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict.
Bush Torture Memos - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Tyrant
Korea (South)234 Posts
I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:33 Jibba wrote: It seems like it took more effort for you to create that link than it did for me to Google and paste it. But then how do you express your contempt of being forced to google for someone else's laziness? | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote: I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him. I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario + Show Spoiler + Some human rights organisations, professional and academic experts, and military and intelligence leaders, have absolutely rejected the idea that torture is ever legal or acceptable, even in a so-called ticking bomb situation.[1] [4] They have expressed grave concern about the way the dramatic force and artificially simple moral answers the ticking bomb thought-experiment seems to offer, have manipulated and distorted the legal and moral perceptions, reasoning and judgment of both the general population and military and law enforcement officials. They reject the proposition, implicit or explicit, that certain acts of torture are justifiable, even desirable. They believe that simplistic responses to the scenario may lead well-intentioned societies down a slippery slope to legalised and systematic torture. They point out that no evidence of any real-life situation meeting all the criteria to constitute a pure ticking bomb scenario has ever been presented to the public, and that such a situation is highly unlikely. The distorting and misleading nature of the scenario is in part due to the fact that it is most often presented in a manner that keeps many of its assumptions hidden. Once exposed, it becomes clear that the scenario is either wildly unrealistic or that any exception to the prohibition of torture would be much more widespread than the proponent of the scenario originally suggested. The scenario thereby manipulates moral and ethical judgment by obscuring the true moral cost of tolerating any act of torture. Critics emphasize the similarities between the absolute prohibition and taboo of torture, and those that apply to other international crimes such as slavery and genocide. Critics also emphasize that international law is unequivocal: the prohibition of torture is subject to no exception of any kind. Every act of torture is an international crime. In the words of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, quoting a leading US case, "the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."[5] For instance, it is asked whether torture would be limited to suspects, or whether one could torture the family and friends of a suspect to make him compliant. According to John Yoo (the former Department of Justice official who wrote memos justifying President Bush's policies on torture) this would be legally permissible, including crushing the testicles of the person’s child to obtain information.[6] If we imagine that officials might attempt to justify torture of people whose phone numbers happened to be in a suspect's mobile phone or agenda-book, in their desperation to find useful information, the range of possible victims of "ticking bomb" torture becomes much wider. Another point is the notorious unreliability of the information gathered, e.g. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The biggest objection is the notion that innocent suspects could be subjected to torture as a result of this "the end justifies the means" debate. Despite the fact that it's a horribly written Wikipedia entry, it covers most of the problems. The last two parts are really most important in actually debating it, imo. I don't think there's any evidence that torture leads to better information gathering. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/17/MNH515C1KK.DTL President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general has endorsed an extension of the law that allows federal agents to demand Americans' library and bookstore records as part of terrorism probes, dismaying a national group of independent booksellers. Eric Holder said at his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he supports renewing a section of the USA Patriot Act that allows FBI agents investigating international terrorism or espionage to seek records from businesses, libraries and bookstores. If not renewed by Congress, the provision will expire at the end of 2009. The searches must be authorized by a court that meets secretly and has approved the government's requests in nearly all cases, according to congressional reports. The target of the search does not have to be suspected of terrorism or any other crime. A permanent gag order that accompanies each search prohibits the business or library from telling anyone about it. Holder said he realizes the provision has been controversial and he will seek more information from department staff before making a final decision, if confirmed as attorney general. He didn't elaborate on his support for the law, but said at another point in the hearing that his top priority would be to protect Americans from terrorism, using "every available tactic ... within the letter and spirit of the Constitution." "I was disappointed" that Holder supports the bookstore and library searches, "although maybe not entirely surprised," Chris Finan, spokesman for the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, said Friday. The provision Holder wants Congress to renew, known as Section 215, "gives the government far too much power to conduct fishing expeditions in the records of bookstore customers and library patrons," Finan said. "We never expected that the change of administration would mean we had any less of a fight on our hands." Finan said the Justice Department has told Congress that it conducted only 42 searches nationwide from 2004 through 2007, the last year covered by congressional reports. The law does not require the department to describe the targets of the searches, and Finan said no breakdowns on bookstore or library searches are available because of the gag orders. Organizations of librarians and booksellers have denounced the law as an assault on reader privacy. Some libraries have posted signs warning patrons that their records are subject to government inspection, and many librarians now destroy files on borrowers who have returned their books. Opponents of the Patriot Act provision have lobbied Congress to require that agents seeking such records obtain grand jury subpoenas, based on evidence of wrongdoing, and defend them before a judge if the record-keeper objected. So far, their efforts have failed. Finan said the American Booksellers Association, which represents 2,000 independent bookstores, and allied groups of librarians, publishers and writers will instead try to soften the law along the lines of legislation that Obama supported in the Senate last year. Carried by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., the bill would have allowed agents to obtain records of customers and library patrons only if they were actually suspected of terrorism, and would have authorized court challenges by keepers of the records. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24761 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote: I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him. I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict. Torture rarely accomplishes its purposes. All you would get out of torturing people is self-gratification, and that is not an acceptable justification. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43753 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote: I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him. I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict. I believe it's very contextual. Enemy soldiers should always be treated with deference for example, simply because they've done nothing wrong, they're just on the wrong side. You'd want your guys to be treated with respect if captured, theirs are no difference. Spies and terrorists are a different matter and if their country refuses to acknowledge them then they're fair game. Torture shouldn't be a routine matter but I believe it can be justified. That said, it's not all that useful. Torture makes the victim say whatever answer he believes will make the torture stop, not necessarily the truth. | ||
|
sushiman
Sweden2691 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote: I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him. I think war is terrible, but trying to combat guerrilla tactics with politically correct punitive measures is futile. The only thing you will accomplish is letting them know that there really are no consequences for aggression against said land and perpetuate the conflict. Hardly any of the people confined at Guantanamo have been prosecuted or convicted of anything, with little evidence to even support them being locked up. Just that is already bad enough, topping it of with torture is just brutish and uncivilized behavior, unbecoming of a democratic nation that should show at least some respect towards human rights. I'm appalled by the decision, as well as the poor choice of words, by Obama of not prosecuting the people responsible. Can't say I'm surprised though. | ||
|
Xenocide_Knight
Korea (South)2625 Posts
Torture has always been a part of human nature If the US government wasn't secretly torturing people, THEN i would be scared | ||
|
Clasic
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
| ||
|
YianKutKu
United States142 Posts
| ||
|
aRod
United States758 Posts
The United States supreme court voted and declared the actions in guantanimo violated the geneva convention's standards of torture and that these standards should be applied to the detainees in guantanimo. They are torture by international definitions we agreed with. Is there worse torture? Yeah of course. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:34 Tyrant wrote: I never understood American politics in regard to torture. If someone aimed to harm my homeland and I were in charge of protecting it, the mother fuckers bent on destruction would be lucky to look as good as the guy shackled to the bed from the movie seven when I got done with him. and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
the bookstore thing is pretty bad, yeah, but headbangaa is just trolling so whatever | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:53 travis wrote: and when your country inprisons and tortures you or your loved ones due to suspicion of terrorism, what then? A person would have to either be mentally insane, living in some kind of hell-world, or horribly ignorant to be pro torture when all there is is suspicion. Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43753 Posts
On April 17 2009 09:52 ShoCkeyy wrote: Lol scared of insects?.... What kind of insects are we talking about here? Phobia. An irrational fear. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24761 Posts
Even most of you who are like 'who cares' would be scared shitless in many insect-related situations. | ||
|
anderoo
Canada1876 Posts
lfnskljfsd | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On April 17 2009 10:11 Cloud wrote: Eh, you can only torture to get an answer, when you have doubts, when there is suspicion. Torturing a guilty guy no matter how horrendous his crime is, is just useless, and id say even sicker. Because you will stop the torture when you get the answer, you wont continue when you know hes guilty. I think the idea is when you KNOW the person has information and is dangerous. Not that you want him to admit he's dangerous. The distinction is made because if you torture someone you're not sure has information, they'll just invent information. The idea is that if someone does have the information, they won't lie (although I have no idea if that belief is accurate). | ||
| ||
