|
On May 14 2009 09:40 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it? Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie. Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality.
First of all, there is never any case where someone is about to die and we have to torture someone to get the password or some movie bullshit. It's not a fair analogy.
Second, stop pretending to know what I am about to say. You have the moral reasoning of someone completely different from me. You present the world as some kind of ongoing battle of good versus evil which is completely different from my perspective. You completely ignore the societal implications of allowing torture, I think that's pretty shortsighted. Do you even realize how what you brand as evil is allowed to exist in the first place? Even if you think torture is morally justifiable, I am pretty sure you have no clue as to how effective it really is (nor do I) so don't even try to argue about this.
And branding anyone against torture as a liberal is complete childish nonsense, McCain is not a liberal, as are many opposed to torture. Is this really necessary? As if a liberal point of view would be less valid.
|
On May 14 2009 10:20 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 10:04 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:58 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:48 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong. The reason that you may torture someone innocent is reason enough for me to say it's wrong EVERY TIME. I believe there are other means to a better end. why would i be torturing an innocent person? and please, i have been waiting this whole thread for this particular argument to come up, enlighten me as to what better method to extract information there is than torture? again i didnt say it wasnt wrong, i want you to understand its not the right answer here According to Jibba, France found torture to be ineffective. What stops tortured people from giving out false information? Gathering evidence through other, usual, means of investigation are more accurate and more humane alternatives. EDIT: Torture is also used to get confessions, not only information. answer my question in your next post please, what other method is better than torture for extracting information? torture has been #1 on that list for as long as humans have discovered its usefulness. so come up with a name of those other, usual, means of investigation that are more accurate torture is very risky, very taxing, if it wasnt producing efficient results... would a technologically advanced country like the US use it? i also have an opinion why France in the 20th century may have found torture to be ineffective but i think there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, so no need to talk about it again
Gathering evidence through empirical investigations is more accurate and more humane. I googled "torture, false, information" and got this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03shane.html
"His question is only underscored by a 1956 article, “Communist Interrogation,” in The Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, recently turned up by the Intelligence Science Board, which advises the spy agencies. Written by doctors working as Defense Department consultants, Lawrence E. Hinkle Jr. and Harold G. Wolff, the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information."
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/article995921.ece
"As a retired CIA intelligence analyst, I am appalled by the use of torture both because it is morally wrong and against our international obligations, but also because one cannot trust any information or confessions gained by these methods."
Why USA uses torture despite being a developed country is perhaps because people think it's good to beat their kids. Look at Aegraen. He's sure no pussy. Torturing people is so fucking manly.
|
On May 14 2009 07:32 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 07:25 VegeTerran wrote:On May 14 2009 07:10 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 06:55 Archerofaiur wrote:On May 14 2009 06:49 Aegraen wrote:
I'm not word wrangling anything. This is the Geneva Conventions. There is no moral compass in times of War! You either, are killed, or get killed. You have to extract all possible information by any means necessary.
I would rather be alive than dead. Also, if you think what happened to the detainees as torture, then there were many persons subjected to torture on the Fear Factor. Its still wrong. Im sorry im not going to play mind games with you. If you have to do it then you say "ok we have to torture". We have to do something wrong to protect ourselves. You don't pretend its something else. You don't understand what Torture is. We waterboard our own special forces. It is not torture. Listening to loud music for 20 hours is not torture. Being put in a box with insects your scared of is not torture. Torture is having bamboo shoved up your fingernails. Torture is breaking your bones. Torture is watching them kill your fellow soldiers. Torture is many things, and what happened at Guantanamo is not torture. Do you even know what countries did in WWI / II / Vietnam (Viet Cong), etc? You do know US shot and killed those who surrendered on the beaches of Normandy. In times of war the only thing that guides you, is survival, and abiding by the geneva conventions if able to (See: Normandy). You are the only one who is putting the US on the proverbial "Pussy Pedestal". We are the moral compass of the world because of our domestic life, not because of what we do during War. do you really believe the crap you're writing? Of course a liberal socialist would say such things. Protip: Robin Hood is a story.
Idiot. Ever wonder how fucking insensitive and out of touch with reality you come off arguing about definitions of torture in the manner you do?
For reference you should watch the movie "Hotel Rwanda", and see the defintion of genocide being argued while at least half a million people are slaughtered. Your comments are as contradictory to common sense and out of touch with reality as those in the movie.
And I will have you know, that you conviently omitted Article 3 of the geneva convention:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Any person detained is at minimum guaranteed the rights in Article 3. They can expect to be treated humanely, as well as being tried by a "regularly constituted court". Not some bullshit military commision invented by Bush.
Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if you would stop using the term enemy combatant. As it's a term invented by the Bush administration and as it infact creates confusion, since "enemy combatants" may indeed have rights according to the geneva convention. Enemy combatants fall into two cathegories; either lawful or unlawful enemy combatants.
And to conclude: unlawful enemy combatants and non-combatants (popularly referred to only as enemy combatants in the United States) do at the very least enjoy the rights of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590006?OpenDocument
I know Article 3 was originally designed for securing combatants' rights in civil wars. But if the US refuses any other type of classification, they are infact bound apply this one.
The Supreme Court has on several occasions ruled that the Geneva Convetion, in specific article 3, can be applied to detainees held by the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld
"In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (29 June 2006) the US Supreme Court did not rule on the subject of unlawful combatant status but did reaffirm that the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions. Most notably it said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of detainees, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror."
Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ruling
"As to the laws of war, to the majority these necessarily include the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, each of which require more protections than the military commission provides. The UCMJ, Art. 36 (b), which requires that rules applied in courts-martial and military commissions be "uniform insofar as practicable." Stevens found several substantial deviations, including:
* The defendant and the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to view certain evidence used against the defendant; the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to discuss certain evidence with the defendant;
* Evidence judged to have any probative value may be admitted, including hearsay, unsworn live testimony, and statements gathered through torture; and
* Appeals are not heard by courts, but only within the Executive Branch (with an exception not here relevant).
These deviations made the commissions violate the UCMJ.
The majority also found that the procedures in question violate the "at least" applicable Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It found that the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Conventions did not apply:
1. It erroneously relied on Johnson v. Eisentrager, which does not legally control in Hamdan's case because there was then no deviation between the procedures used in the tribunal and those used in courts-martial;
2. It erroneously ruled that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because Art. 3 affords minimal protection to combatants "in the territory of" a signatory; and
3. Those minimal protections include being tried by a "regularly constituted court," which the military commission is not.
Because the military commission does not meet the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of the Geneva Convention, it violates the laws of war and therefore cannot be used to try Hamdan."
The Bush Administration's 5-6 years of legal filibustering does not allow for nor does it raise any remotely valid question of "legal greyzones" in regards to the definition of torture or the rights of detainees. It is just that: legal filibustering, bureaucracy, a catch 22; call it what you will. Most of all it makes you look like a fucking fool invoking definitions and throwing around socialist slanders as a means of justifying something inherently wrong. Water boarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, exposion to phobias, being detained without trial etc. Not strictly defined as torture? Oh come on, man! This has nothing to do with being liberal or socialist. It's common sense!
It may take your legal system another half a decade to catch up and revise history. Meanwhile I'm sure you'll still be arguing defintions... To what avail?
*edit: Sorry for personal insults etc directed towards Aegraen. Easily get fired up when people start throwing definitions around.
|
Drowning is torture. Waterboarding is drowning, therefore it is torture.
|
We can view this argument a few ways, namely,
1. We should never torture under any circumstances. Not to save one life, not to save a million. And vice-versa, we should always torture, under all circumstances, even if it's a 9 year old girl.
2. The greatest good for the greatest number of people, ie, what is the suffering of one person in exchange for the lives of x amount of people (where x could be one or one million).
It's the categorical imperative vs. the utilitarianism approach as always, the debate about torture is an ethical/moral one. I don't know where some of you get off trying to find these loopholes in the law that somehow allow it, it's pointless. You still have to take a stance. Definition pasting is the same way, you idiots don't seem to understand that going to dictionary.com does not constitute the moral definition of torture.
|
KlaCkoN,
the nazi arguments DID work. the SS guys that actually operated the death camps were not the ones that went to the firing squad.
besides, the average GI Joe doesnt know what it feels like to be waterboarded, how would they know its torture?
|
On May 14 2009 10:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 10:20 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 10:04 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:58 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:48 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong. The reason that you may torture someone innocent is reason enough for me to say it's wrong EVERY TIME. I believe there are other means to a better end. why would i be torturing an innocent person? and please, i have been waiting this whole thread for this particular argument to come up, enlighten me as to what better method to extract information there is than torture? again i didnt say it wasnt wrong, i want you to understand its not the right answer here According to Jibba, France found torture to be ineffective. What stops tortured people from giving out false information? Gathering evidence through other, usual, means of investigation are more accurate and more humane alternatives. EDIT: Torture is also used to get confessions, not only information. answer my question in your next post please, what other method is better than torture for extracting information? torture has been #1 on that list for as long as humans have discovered its usefulness. so come up with a name of those other, usual, means of investigation that are more accurate torture is very risky, very taxing, if it wasnt producing efficient results... would a technologically advanced country like the US use it? i also have an opinion why France in the 20th century may have found torture to be ineffective but i think there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, so no need to talk about it again Gathering evidence through empirical investigations is more accurate and more humane. I googled "torture, false, information" and got this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03shane.html"His question is only underscored by a 1956 article, “Communist Interrogation,” in The Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, recently turned up by the Intelligence Science Board, which advises the spy agencies. Written by doctors working as Defense Department consultants, Lawrence E. Hinkle Jr. and Harold G. Wolff, the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information." http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/article995921.ece"As a retired CIA intelligence analyst, I am appalled by the use of torture both because it is morally wrong and against our international obligations, but also because one cannot trust any information or confessions gained by these methods." Why USA uses torture despite being a developed country is perhaps because people think it's good to beat their kids. Look at Aegraen. He's sure no pussy. Torturing people is so fucking manly.
The torture in question is the mild types of 'torture' that the soviets and some(in this thread) americans believed wasn't in violation of the convention or simply wasn't regarded as torture.
the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information.
which perfectly leads me into the point i wanted to make here, there is no better method than torture. what we have here is nations striving to find a loophole in the convention to still produce results because nothing else will, if i torture you with no remorse you will provide me with the information i set out for. that means no regard to any convention of nations. such torture is largely unused in todays day and age. so with that being said my original point stands--to help you understand, imagine torture from the roman times, if you can, google that, thats torture that produces results, torture is #1 on that list man thats the reality here and thats why developed nations use torture still
this article also only illuminates the idea that it is possible/plausible that the subject being tortured is going to be put in a position to just say anything, its as i expected really, because thats always a possibility with or without torture, empirical questioning doesn't eliminate the possibility because its more humane if you need an example look at the police force, you couldn't get O.J. Simpson to admit guilt why would a supposed terrorist? a man willing to strap death onto his body and take his enemies life with this sacrifice?
and of course its worth it to say that theres always exceptions, you might get that 1 rambo or a squad of guys that are resistant to torture, fundamentalists might fall under this category but who knows i didnt torture any or had any results on my desk in the morning that were questionnable
well i'm used to the hypocrisy in my country so when the nukes fly good riddance to all of us(humans).
Aegrean is trying to tackle another argument, which really is something I believe in, this age the people in the developed countries are weak in my view, you can't argue against that, its one of the downsides from evolution, we lose that predatory instinct i think but thats besides the point of this argument, so lets not discuss it further
|
On May 14 2009 10:58 dybydx wrote:
besides, the average GI Joe doesnt know what it feels like to be waterboarded, how would they know its torture?
dont insult the intelligence of american soldiers chief, the same way your genius ass figured it out with pure imagination it was torture might be the same way a 'GI JOE' does
|
On May 14 2009 11:00 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 10:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 10:20 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 10:04 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:58 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:48 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong. The reason that you may torture someone innocent is reason enough for me to say it's wrong EVERY TIME. I believe there are other means to a better end. why would i be torturing an innocent person? and please, i have been waiting this whole thread for this particular argument to come up, enlighten me as to what better method to extract information there is than torture? again i didnt say it wasnt wrong, i want you to understand its not the right answer here According to Jibba, France found torture to be ineffective. What stops tortured people from giving out false information? Gathering evidence through other, usual, means of investigation are more accurate and more humane alternatives. EDIT: Torture is also used to get confessions, not only information. answer my question in your next post please, what other method is better than torture for extracting information? torture has been #1 on that list for as long as humans have discovered its usefulness. so come up with a name of those other, usual, means of investigation that are more accurate torture is very risky, very taxing, if it wasnt producing efficient results... would a technologically advanced country like the US use it? i also have an opinion why France in the 20th century may have found torture to be ineffective but i think there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, so no need to talk about it again Gathering evidence through empirical investigations is more accurate and more humane. I googled "torture, false, information" and got this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03shane.html"His question is only underscored by a 1956 article, “Communist Interrogation,” in The Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, recently turned up by the Intelligence Science Board, which advises the spy agencies. Written by doctors working as Defense Department consultants, Lawrence E. Hinkle Jr. and Harold G. Wolff, the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information." http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/article995921.ece"As a retired CIA intelligence analyst, I am appalled by the use of torture both because it is morally wrong and against our international obligations, but also because one cannot trust any information or confessions gained by these methods." Why USA uses torture despite being a developed country is perhaps because people think it's good to beat their kids. Look at Aegraen. He's sure no pussy. Torturing people is so fucking manly. The torture in question is the mild types of 'torture' that the soviets and some(in this thread) americans believed wasn't in violation of the convention or simply wasn't regarded as torture. Show nested quote +the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information. which perfectly leads me into the point i wanted to make here, there is no better method than torture. what we have here is nations striving to find a loophole in the convention to still produce results because nothing else will, if i torture you with no remorse you will provide me with the information i set out for. that means no regard to any convention of nations. such torture is largely unused in todays day and age. so with that being said my original point stands--to help you understand, imagine torture from the roman times, if you can, google that, thats torture that produces results, torture is #1 on that list man thats the reality here and thats why developed nations use torture still this article also only illuminates the idea that it is possible/plausible that the subject being tortured is going to be put in a position to just say anything, its as i expected really, because thats always a possibility with or without torture, empirical questioning doesn't eliminate the possibility because its more humane if you need an example look at the police force, you couldn't get O.J. Simpson to admit guilt why would a supposed terrorist? a man willing to strap death onto his body and take his enemies life with this sacrifice? and of course its worth it to say that theres always exceptions, you might get that 1 rambo or a squad of guys that are resistant to torture, fundamentalists might fall under this category but who knows i didnt torture any or had any results on my desk in the morning that were questionnable well i'm used to the hypocrisy in my country so when the nukes fly good riddance to all of us(humans). Aegrean is trying to tackle another argument, which really is something I believe in, this age the people in the developed countries are weak in my view, you can't argue against that, its one of the downsides from evolution, we lose that predatory instinct i think but thats besides the point of this argument, so lets not discuss it further
If I don't have the information you set out for and you torture me without remorse, I will give you false information to make you stop. The conventions are there for a reason and it's ignorant of nations to disregard them. The romans used such means because they were fucking idiots (not well developed). Everyone thinks they were, so your point is invalid.
Empirical means make results if the subject to torture doesn't have the information. It is also more humane regardless if he has it or not. A person being tortured has something to gain by giving the right information (the torture stops). A person who committed a crime with a harsh sentence does not.
I think evolution has made us strong. Care for other people is a strength and not a weakness. You're heartless if you don't think so.
|
On May 14 2009 10:20 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 09:40 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. Hypothetically, if you could 'torture' using your definition (Loud music, phobias, waterboarding, etc.) and save even one life, you wouldn't do it? Now, your retort is going to be, but, but 'torture' hasn't saved anyone. Thats a flat out lie. Libs, you need to wake up and join the rest of us in what we call reality. First of all, there is never any case where someone is about to die and we have to torture someone to get the password or some movie bullshit. It's not a fair analogy. Second, stop pretending to know what I am about to say. You have the moral reasoning of someone completely different from me. You present the world as some kind of ongoing battle of good versus evil which is completely different from my perspective. You completely ignore the societal implications of allowing torture, I think that's pretty shortsighted. Do you even realize how what you brand as evil is allowed to exist in the first place? Even if you think torture is morally justifiable, I am pretty sure you have no clue as to how effective it really is (nor do I) so don't even try to argue about this. And branding anyone against torture as a liberal is complete childish nonsense, McCain is not a liberal, as are many opposed to torture. Is this really necessary? As if a liberal point of view would be less valid.
First off it's not a ticking time bomb scenario. Not every way to gather intelligence has another correlative to extract that information. For example, you can extract information from clandestine operations (known as HUMINT), where there are no other means to gather the same information. The same correlative can be drawn. How are you going to know about a plot that a select few know about? SIGINT? Nope. ELINT? Nope. MASINT? Nope. COMINT? about a one in a billion chance. IMINT? Nope. (Just for the record, my college major is in Intelligence Studies, and I work in an Intelligence field)
Also, I do not consider waterboarding torture, where you do. So, when I say torture, it implicitly means things like what the VC employed, Pol Pot, NKVD, SS, etc. McCain is as liberal as any democrat. He is a RINO! Proposing socialist-lite idea's and promoting near the same things as Obama makes you...not a liberal? Please, you are intelligent, you can look past the little designations next to their name right? The 2 witches of the NE are liberals also, I have no idea why the GOP lets them stay in the party or any RINOS for that matter. They should all be booted out!
Good vs Evil? Nope. Self-preservation? Yes. Do I think Islam is a fucked up religion and all the people wishing death to the US to die? Hell yes, and I'll do everything I can to see that day to fruition. That goes for anyone seeking to do physical harm to the US, or its citizens here and abroad. We went in and annihilated the Barbary Pirates when they were attacking our merchants, and citizens. This is no different.
There is no moral compass, and high ground when in war. You do what you have to do to survive. Every soldier knows this. You have most likely never served, so you don't understand.
You ignore the societal impacts of not using every means to achieve victory. Do I condone horrendous acts I call torture? Hell no. There is a line to be drawn, but waterboarding is not where that line is at. US Special Forces, get waterboarded. Do they get their legs broken, or bamboo shoved up their fingernails, or tied to horses and their tendons ripped, or malnurished, et al I could go on. No, no no because we in the military know what is, and is not torture, however subjective the word is.
Yes, I will brand anyone against using quote on quote 'torture' as a liberal because 90% posting are from Sweden (Socialists galore) and the rest have this hard on for some imaginary moral compass in times of war which are exactly how liberals are.
Yes, to me a liberal viewpoint is invalid. Taking over banks, private companies, branding conservatives extremists, trashing the constitution, yes, all invalid!
1776 American signing off.
|
On May 14 2009 10:33 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 07:32 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 07:25 VegeTerran wrote:On May 14 2009 07:10 Aegraen wrote:On May 14 2009 06:55 Archerofaiur wrote:On May 14 2009 06:49 Aegraen wrote:
I'm not word wrangling anything. This is the Geneva Conventions. There is no moral compass in times of War! You either, are killed, or get killed. You have to extract all possible information by any means necessary.
I would rather be alive than dead. Also, if you think what happened to the detainees as torture, then there were many persons subjected to torture on the Fear Factor. Its still wrong. Im sorry im not going to play mind games with you. If you have to do it then you say "ok we have to torture". We have to do something wrong to protect ourselves. You don't pretend its something else. You don't understand what Torture is. We waterboard our own special forces. It is not torture. Listening to loud music for 20 hours is not torture. Being put in a box with insects your scared of is not torture. Torture is having bamboo shoved up your fingernails. Torture is breaking your bones. Torture is watching them kill your fellow soldiers. Torture is many things, and what happened at Guantanamo is not torture. Do you even know what countries did in WWI / II / Vietnam (Viet Cong), etc? You do know US shot and killed those who surrendered on the beaches of Normandy. In times of war the only thing that guides you, is survival, and abiding by the geneva conventions if able to (See: Normandy). You are the only one who is putting the US on the proverbial "Pussy Pedestal". We are the moral compass of the world because of our domestic life, not because of what we do during War. do you really believe the crap you're writing? Of course a liberal socialist would say such things. Protip: Robin Hood is a story. Idiot. Ever wonder how fucking insensitive and out of touch with reality you come off arguing about definitions of torture in the manner you do? For reference you should watch the movie "Hotel Rwanda", and see the defintion of genocide being argued while at least half a million people are slaughtered. Your comments are as contradictory to common sense and out of touch with reality as those in the movie. And I will have you know, that you conviently omitted Article 3 of the geneva convention: Show nested quote + Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict. Any person detained is at minimum guaranteed the rights in Article 3. They can expect to be treated humanely, as well as being tried by a "regularly constituted court". Not some bullshit military commision invented by Bush. Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if you would stop using the term enemy combatant. As it's a term invented by the Bush administration and as it infact creates confusion, since "enemy combatants" may indeed have rights according to the geneva convention. Enemy combatants fall into two cathegories; either lawful or unlawful enemy combatants. And to conclude: unlawful enemy combatants and non-combatants (popularly referred to only as enemy combatants in the United States) do at the very least enjoy the rights of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590006?OpenDocumentI know Article 3 was originally designed for securing combatants' rights in civil wars. But if the US refuses any other type of classification, they are infact bound apply this one. The Supreme Court has on several occasions ruled that the Geneva Convetion, in specific article 3, can be applied to detainees held by the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld"In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (29 June 2006) the US Supreme Court did not rule on the subject of unlawful combatant status but did reaffirm that the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions. Most notably it said that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of detainees, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror." Show nested quote + Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ruling
"As to the laws of war, to the majority these necessarily include the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, each of which require more protections than the military commission provides. The UCMJ, Art. 36 (b), which requires that rules applied in courts-martial and military commissions be "uniform insofar as practicable." Stevens found several substantial deviations, including:
* The defendant and the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to view certain evidence used against the defendant; the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to discuss certain evidence with the defendant;
* Evidence judged to have any probative value may be admitted, including hearsay, unsworn live testimony, and statements gathered through torture; and
* Appeals are not heard by courts, but only within the Executive Branch (with an exception not here relevant).
These deviations made the commissions violate the UCMJ.
The majority also found that the procedures in question violate the "at least" applicable Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It found that the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Conventions did not apply:
1. It erroneously relied on Johnson v. Eisentrager, which does not legally control in Hamdan's case because there was then no deviation between the procedures used in the tribunal and those used in courts-martial;
2. It erroneously ruled that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because Art. 3 affords minimal protection to combatants "in the territory of" a signatory; and
3. Those minimal protections include being tried by a "regularly constituted court," which the military commission is not.
Because the military commission does not meet the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of the Geneva Convention, it violates the laws of war and therefore cannot be used to try Hamdan." The Bush Administration's 5-6 years of legal filibustering does not allow for nor does it raise any remotely valid question of "legal greyzones" in regards to the definition of torture or the rights of detainees. It is just that: legal filibustering, bureaucracy, a catch 22; call it what you will. Most of all it makes you look like a fucking fool invoking definitions and throwing around socialist slanders as a means of justifying something inherently wrong. Water boarding, sleep deprivation, loud music, exposion to phobias, being detained without trial etc. Not strictly defined as torture? Oh come on, man! This has nothing to do with being liberal or socialist. It's common sense! It may take your legal system another half a decade to catch up and revise history. Meanwhile I'm sure you'll still be arguing defintions... To what avail? *edit: Sorry for personal insults etc directed towards Aegraen. Easily get fired up when people start throwing definitions around.
i don't think you read article 3 correctly, what you got out of that article and what i got are different.
it says at a minimum all persons that took no active part in the hostilities, surrender included, or the incapable are prohibited from violence to, hostages, degradation or trials to sentencing/passing judgement to the end of execution and the sick/wounded shall be cared for
it doesn't say any person captured is given at a minimum these rights, the terminology is very specific
|
United States20661 Posts
edit: Oh curious I didn't know about the Rumsfeld ruling.
That being said, torturing them to protect the rest of America is, I feel, morally questionable but ultimately beneficial for our welfare. While many criticize the moral failings of the Bush administration, one must understand the reasoning behind their decision in this case. The torture memos and other quasilegal executive orders had only one goal: to defend the American people. There is no alternative agenda - I doubt Bush gets jollies from waterboarding people, and I'm sure the administration knew how unpopular such tactics would be. Risking so much political capital to protect the United States is one of the few things I respect about the past government.
|
On May 14 2009 11:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 11:00 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 10:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 10:20 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 10:04 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:58 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:49 TS-Rupbar wrote:On May 14 2009 09:48 Xenixx wrote:On May 14 2009 09:37 Frits wrote:On May 14 2009 09:28 Xenixx wrote:
theres no right answer here This is an objective, not a subjective discussion. There is no middle ground or anything of the likes when it comes to torture. You're either for or against it. I'm both for and against torture. The middle ground is my position because I see how both sides are both right and wrong. The reason that you may torture someone innocent is reason enough for me to say it's wrong EVERY TIME. I believe there are other means to a better end. why would i be torturing an innocent person? and please, i have been waiting this whole thread for this particular argument to come up, enlighten me as to what better method to extract information there is than torture? again i didnt say it wasnt wrong, i want you to understand its not the right answer here According to Jibba, France found torture to be ineffective. What stops tortured people from giving out false information? Gathering evidence through other, usual, means of investigation are more accurate and more humane alternatives. EDIT: Torture is also used to get confessions, not only information. answer my question in your next post please, what other method is better than torture for extracting information? torture has been #1 on that list for as long as humans have discovered its usefulness. so come up with a name of those other, usual, means of investigation that are more accurate torture is very risky, very taxing, if it wasnt producing efficient results... would a technologically advanced country like the US use it? i also have an opinion why France in the 20th century may have found torture to be ineffective but i think there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim, so no need to talk about it again Gathering evidence through empirical investigations is more accurate and more humane. I googled "torture, false, information" and got this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/weekinreview/03shane.html"His question is only underscored by a 1956 article, “Communist Interrogation,” in The Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, recently turned up by the Intelligence Science Board, which advises the spy agencies. Written by doctors working as Defense Department consultants, Lawrence E. Hinkle Jr. and Harold G. Wolff, the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information." http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/article995921.ece"As a retired CIA intelligence analyst, I am appalled by the use of torture both because it is morally wrong and against our international obligations, but also because one cannot trust any information or confessions gained by these methods." Why USA uses torture despite being a developed country is perhaps because people think it's good to beat their kids. Look at Aegraen. He's sure no pussy. Torturing people is so fucking manly. The torture in question is the mild types of 'torture' that the soviets and some(in this thread) americans believed wasn't in violation of the convention or simply wasn't regarded as torture. the article shows that methods embraced after 2001 were once considered torture that would produce false information. which perfectly leads me into the point i wanted to make here, there is no better method than torture. what we have here is nations striving to find a loophole in the convention to still produce results because nothing else will, if i torture you with no remorse you will provide me with the information i set out for. that means no regard to any convention of nations. such torture is largely unused in todays day and age. so with that being said my original point stands--to help you understand, imagine torture from the roman times, if you can, google that, thats torture that produces results, torture is #1 on that list man thats the reality here and thats why developed nations use torture still this article also only illuminates the idea that it is possible/plausible that the subject being tortured is going to be put in a position to just say anything, its as i expected really, because thats always a possibility with or without torture, empirical questioning doesn't eliminate the possibility because its more humane if you need an example look at the police force, you couldn't get O.J. Simpson to admit guilt why would a supposed terrorist? a man willing to strap death onto his body and take his enemies life with this sacrifice? and of course its worth it to say that theres always exceptions, you might get that 1 rambo or a squad of guys that are resistant to torture, fundamentalists might fall under this category but who knows i didnt torture any or had any results on my desk in the morning that were questionnable well i'm used to the hypocrisy in my country so when the nukes fly good riddance to all of us(humans). Aegrean is trying to tackle another argument, which really is something I believe in, this age the people in the developed countries are weak in my view, you can't argue against that, its one of the downsides from evolution, we lose that predatory instinct i think but thats besides the point of this argument, so lets not discuss it further If I don't have the information you set out for and you torture me without remorse, I will give you false information to make you stop. The conventions are there for a reason and it's ignorant of nations to disregard them. The romans used such means because they were fucking idiots (not well developed). Everyone thinks they were, so your point is invalid. Empirical means make results if the subject to torture doesn't have the information. It is also more humane regardless if he has it or not. A person being tortured has something to gain by giving the right information (the torture stops). A person who committed a crime with a harsh sentence does not. I think evolution has made us strong. Care for other people is a strength and not a weakness. You're heartless if you don't think so.
now ask yourself if false information produced results for me? then does the torture start back up again? are you more or less likely to give out false information? say hypothetically im well versed in torture, this isnt my first rodeo and i somehow buy the false info and act upon it, a couple of things, did in the meantime i let you go? did i not test the information? does the torture stop? how skeptical am i now? how does the torture proceed, is it better or worse for you? if you dont have the information then why am i torturing you? how able am i to discern that you genuinely don't know? all these questions would come up
the convention is there because torture is a human rights violation, not because torture is ineffective
the romans, as an example, were militaristic so torture falls right into their ability to keep a diverse empire, being stupid has little to do with it, but you didn't even say that much you just meant poorly developed so what was your point? some tangent i assume, if so dont bother responding
empirical then would not be more accurate right? you dont have any solid evidence to substantiate claims, a person who committed a crime with a harsh sentence actually faces the same situation, they're both losing whats left of their freedom they are both PRISONERS
and yes caring for other people is a strength but it causes a weakness in other areas, how many times has the world all clasped hands and sung songs about caring? thats the kind of bleeding heart liberal nonsense that drives some people up the wall
another reality you need to face is the world isn't all about caring, mostly its about selfishly caring for yourself
|
On May 14 2009 11:22 Last Romantic wrote:
edit: Oh curious I didn't know about the Rumsfeld ruling.
That being said, torturing them to protect the rest of America is, I feel, morally questionable but ultimately beneficial for our welfare. While many criticize the moral failings of the Bush administration, one must understand the reasoning behind their decision in this case. The torture memos and other quasilegal executive orders had only one goal: to defend the American people. There is no alternative agenda - I doubt Bush gets jollies from waterboarding people, and I'm sure the administration knew how unpopular such tactics would be. Risking so much political capital to protect the United States is one of the few things I respect about the past government.
glad to see someone else thats closer to the middle of the argument was able to share, thanks
|
On May 14 2009 11:22 Last Romantic wrote:
edit: Oh curious I didn't know about the Rumsfeld ruling.
That being said, torturing them to protect the rest of America is, I feel, morally questionable but ultimately beneficial for our welfare. While many criticize the moral failings of the Bush administration, one must understand the reasoning behind their decision in this case. The torture memos and other quasilegal executive orders had only one goal: to defend the American people. There is no alternative agenda - I doubt Bush gets jollies from waterboarding people, and I'm sure the administration knew how unpopular such tactics would be. Risking so much political capital to protect the United States is one of the few things I respect about the past government.
I think this is the middle ground of this discussion. Well, it does bring fear to enemy combatants/PoW to think twice of making a crime/terrorism in the United States or other countries that supported the War on Terror.
For me the only point of Torture is to tell your enemies "that you gone fucking torture them if they get caught."
I remembered news about how terrorist in our country (Abu Sayyaf Group) tortured military soldiers through skinning them alive and killed them in the process. It still didn't change the fact that the ASG/MILF and the Philippine Military are still bitter rivals fighting over at south part of our archipelago.
Edit: I think they do it for the pleasure of vengeance, but is a fucking sick cycle.
|
Fuck exactly, after the Jessica Lynch thing bought air time my whole unit was 'fuck being captured I'm slugging rounds until I catch my last breath'. There some truth to your statement sir!
|
Risking so much political capital to protect the United States is one of the few things I respect about the past government. There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin.
|
On May 14 2009 12:28 L wrote:Show nested quote + Risking so much political capital to protect the United States is one of the few things I respect about the past government. There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin.
Sure sir, please, I support the statement 
@ xenixx, three more post and you're a zealot brethren :D
|
On May 14 2009 12:28 L wrote:Show nested quote + Risking so much political capital to protect the United States is one of the few things I respect about the past government. There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin.
No there isn't. In casualties 9/11 was worse than Pearl Harbor. The people we are fighting are unorthodox, so the tactics and strategies employed must also be. Sure, we can be timid and politicize war, but that is how you lose wars.
Are you saying we should just give up and let them win because it suddenly is difficult, or more time consuming even though the President said it would be a long hard road? Sorry, Americans do not do that, at least not conservatives (Bush is NO conservative, but he handled the war right (In the sense of using all means necessary, and letting the Generals carry the war out) and its one subject just about all conservatives are in agreement on). Domestically, bush was a liberal (Shamnesty, Medicare D, Spending, etc.).
Anyways, I'm sure your stance would be to wage wars politically not militarily. There is so much wrong with that statement I don't know where to begin.
|
On May 14 2009 12:32 Licmyobelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2009 12:28 L wrote: Risking so much political capital to protect the United States is one of the few things I respect about the past government. There's so much wrong with this statement that I don't know where to begin. Sure sir, please, I support the statement @ xenixx, three more post and you're a zealot brethren :D
Can I join too?! I've been fighting liberals since well, grade school. (Not actual fist fighting, everyone knows the left doesn't know figurative speech when it comes from the right, only the left)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
