Toture

[Vater Araignee]

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I would like to point out that paperhearts is correct. We do have international laws and treatys that we have to or should follow if we want to get along with the world. He missed one part though. Before you talk about them, you should read them. As for the Geneva Convention. These people we are talking about are NOT Uniformed Soldiers of a recognized government. They are not even part of recognized militias. According to the Geneva Converntion ... the moment they picked up a weapon and used it against us they fall under a specific set of laws in the Convention. I can't remember off the top of my head what the term is that is used for htem.. but I do remember how we are sopposed to treat them. We are sopposed to execute them as soon as they are captured. According to International law they forfited thier life the moment they picked up that weapon and used it. There is still a process that is sopposed to be used on them (to prove if they actually did what they are accused of). It's called a Military Tribunal. NOT a civilian court.

and as a side note... We really need a better, recognized defintion of what is and is not Torture.

Where I stand? I don't know. If pulling your finger nails off with a pair of plyers will save 50 innocent lives could I do it? No, but I could turn my back while someone else did. You'll grow new finger nails.

[pharoh]

Personally, I feel that even in the event that such methods become more effective, I'd rather be remembered as a civilized person who never compromised himself and died in a terrorist attack than an asshole who goes on existing.

-Just wondering where other people are at on this.

PH I think the spirit of this thread has been followed through, you asked what people's thoughts are on this and we gave them to ya.

[kellygrrrrrl]

I don't know what to think about this topic.

I am not for it, but understand that information NEEDS to be given.

But, if the person is innocent, and knows nothing, they get beaten or whatever else they do for no good reason.

I think it is Bad. Bad bad bad.

Torture is inhumane. Cruel. Savage like. Barberic.

But. yeah.

I understand the consequences of not getting the information...Boom.

?

These topics make me sad.

I'll visit this topic another day.

[HipsterDufus]

I think what it boils down to is the golden rule. Basically, what we have to accept is that any rules that we apply to suspects in our custody are the same rules that they will apply to us (I realize that many do not think highly enough of the Islamic extremists to actually believe that they would treat our prisoners well). For example, let's say we rip off a terror suspects nail when interrogating him. Questionable, but perhaps some would consider it justifiable. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Do we want to say to the rest of the world that it's okay that they rip off an American soldier's fingernail in order to protect their own? I think most of us would give a resounding, "HELL NO." And that's basically what this debate is about. Sure, we're in a war on terror right now (supposedly). But someday, we may be in a real, conventional war and I think that we're going to want any American prisoners treated with respect and dignity. The only way we can even have a chance at that is if we treat their prisoners the same. IMHO.

[Paper Hearts]

I would like to point out that paperhearts is correct. We do have international laws and treatys that we have to or should follow if we want to get along with the world. He missed one part though. Before you talk about them, you should read them. As for the Geneva Convention. These people we are talking about are NOT Uniformed Soldiers of a recognized government. They are not even part of recognized militias. According to the Geneva Converntion ... the moment they picked up a weapon and used it against us they fall under a specific set of laws in the Convention. I can't remember off the top of my head what the term is that is used for htem.. but I do remember how we are sopposed to treat them. We are sopposed to execute them as soon as they are captured. According to International law they forfited thier life the moment they picked up that weapon and used it. There is still a process that is sopposed to be used on them (to prove if they actually did what they are accused of). It's called a Military Tribunal. NOT a civilian court.

and as a side note... We really need a better, recognized defintion of what is and is not Torture.

Where I stand? I don't know. If pulling your finger nails off with a pair of plyers will save 50 innocent lives could I do it? No, but I could turn my back while someone else did. You'll grow new finger nails.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, to someone else attempting to show my point of view as invalid, through your same method, the interpretation of the Geneva Conventions and federal laws originally taken by the Bush Administration (the one you've also listed as your own) has long ago been decided wrong by our own Supreme Court...and for those who missed it, that happened over a full two years and three months ago...and since that point in time, the Bush administration is 'meant' to be abiding by an entirely different explanation of Geneva Conventions protocols, one in great contrast to the president's opinion. In effect, unless the findings of the lawsuits against Rumsfeld and Bush are over turned, something impossible through legislation by nature of our system of government...which we should also show, doesn't seem possible anyway, even given a majority Republican Congress, as the recently publicized split in GOP leadership over the president's torture agenda illustrates, the Bush administrations original assumptions are wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3831399.stm

Also, as a result of what are considered violations of the Geneva Conventions, and Federal Laws adopted for their consistency with ideas true to our Constitution, the question of legality of military tribunals for detainees is yet in review and also as a result of such violations, the tone of possible, eventual tribunals is also a matter of contention. And it is via Bush administration misunderstanding of the Geneva Conventions and federal laws, that not a single detainee held at either Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay prisons is yet to be tried, through any system, at any rate. So your statement about tribunals is only half true.

Moreover, It should also be pointed out, that physical evidence such as the secret memorandums from the desk of president Bush and top administration officials show that prisoner abuses in this war are not a continuation of any ongoing US policy, but rather were chosen to begin where the option existed all along for abuse of detainees from the “War on Terror”, held in US custody , never to have been directed to start. I would also put that in considering such evidence as the secret memos, as well as FBI, CIA, and Military Intelligence testimonies given in the investigation made by General Taguba, for instance, simply citing that the United States has tortured in the past would not hold up in either federal or international courts, as a valid defense, and thus has not been a defense attempted by the Bush administration. While the Bush administration currently makes it’s torture program a matter of public agenda, the Bush administration’s torture program was originally intended to exist only covertly, becoming a public issue only after the administration's violations were discovered by the public because the administration began to fear federal and international legal repercussions such as impeachment and imprisonment--a fear that has become all the more expedient with the distinct possibility that the Democrats could control the congress after this November, and almost definitely accounts for the administration's return to it's previous ideology which only alleged that the Geneva Conventions and federal laws either do not apply or apply in ways since found incorrect.

As for the president's demand that the congress redefine certain articles in the Geneva Conventions, it should be realized that the Geneva Conventions are international treaties and that the Congress of the United States has no jurisdiction to do that without including all other foreign nation signatories as equal partners in any such review--and even that is an unlikely possibility given that the Convention's ban on torture (signed by the US in 1994) makes illegal any method designed to cause any amount of physical or mental suffering which does 'not' amount to "torture", let alone anything beyond that. And, as stated, the Federal Anti-Torture Statute and Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act include civilians such as contractors, in correct handling of prisoners in custody, in addition to other Federal laws incorporated that would hold military and government personnel responsible for upholding all parts of the Geneva Conventions agreed to.

Also, while the president's claim that torture saves innocent lives is irrelevant given laws regarding abusive treatment, it's also a claim yet unproved and even further, contrary to all previous findings made public by American intelligence agencies.

Thus, in response to the president's agenda (which you seem to indicate is also your view), forgive me, but I must say that opinion is one thing and distortion is another.

[Vater Araignee]

I'm not going to bother to read this thread until somebody alerts me to the fact that something new has been posted.

This whole thing has degraded into a battle of reiteration.

I'm right because I can repeat myself.

NO!! I win because I can repeat my self in a slightly different manner.

I beat you both because I'm willing to repeat myself more than you!!

[BrassFusion]

Well, being that you just bumped it after three days' dormancy...

[Homicidalheathen]

So last night I asked one of my most liberal, free minded...left wing, human rights no violations type people what they thought.

Of coarse, anti.....

Until I mentioned the kids in the day care of the tower during the 911 attacks and said, if your kid were in there.....or if you thought there was a chance your kid could get hurt and someone possibly knew something.....about to go down...would you not choose torture?

He said yes.

[cptdeath]

i've been seeing adds on late t.v. to join the central inteligence agency. there actually recruiting from t.v. adds localy. to join just go to c.i.a.gov i think.

i was considering it. but then i would probaly just spend four years screaning phone calls in a little cubical and never speak to anyone i knew ever again.

if you throw a cat on someone is that biological warfare would that act be a violation of the ganeva convention

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I've been pondering it a bit more recently.

Im starting to think I'm just against it period.

The whole "pacifist" thing is totally out of style these days and being against torture sort of goes along with that.

But, historically speaking... when they do the blow by blow of who is the "evil" state. Torture is far and away the easiest thing to go "omg look... these fucking bastards tortured people." Moreso than death. Death is viewed as "a part of war" and "bad". Killing innocents? BAD. But torture? Thats >evil<. it does not get any worse in the court of public opinion that torture. torture is usually considered and only real people. murder people yeah your scum. but them bottom barrel scum usually.>

A basic human right in the west was, I think until recently assumed to be, the right not to be tortured. Not that its listed on an offical document somewhere, just a public, gut-level concept. Although you can argue what constitutes "real" torture.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I would like to point out that the Supreme Court just gave it's decision on the Military Tribunals that Bush wanted. They were deemed agaisnt the Law... but Constitutional. They do fit the Geneva convention, they do fit our Constitution and our written Law. BUT.. He was told NO because the were against the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). The only part that was against the UCMJ was the fact that the accused was not allowed to see all evidence against them. I would have thought this was against the Law and Constitution too... but as they are not US Citizens... well, they dont apply.

The Supreme Court wants a deifinition of Torture too. There isn't a standard. The Convention doesn;t define it.. nor do it's standing ducoments. So, where is the line? WE are having this long talk about torture, but we have no definition of what it is.