NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a lively debate going on. Is coercion necessary, in the exhumation of information, from POW's. On another note, do you believe those in Gitmo are POW's, or partisans, or what?

We must, of course, define coercion. See poll.

Dude... Spell Check, please?

I'll wait for the poll.

Dude... Spell Check, please?

I'll wait for the poll.

2 Mispelled words. I feel dirty...

No, history shows that torture damn well dosen't work. As for the prisoners at Gitmo in my opinion the are accused criminals and should be treated as such, meaning they should be given full acess to a fair and constitutional trial, if they don't have enough evidence to convict them they damn well don't have enough evidence to hold them.

Torture? You can't say torture is a good thing mate. Intensive questioning/police brutality OK. But torture? the word itself implies barbarism a la Abu Gahraib or the Spanish Inquisition (altogether now, "nobody excpects....").

As to Guantanamo, the men still kept there are illegal prisoners: you cannot hold men as prisoners of war, when no war is officially still declared under the terms of the Geneva Convention. These men must be tried in non-military courts asap as far as I'm concerned, but as after three years it appears there is no evidence against them then they should be set free:

Three years in jail without a trial? I don't think white prisoners would be treated like that...(controversial)

This is a lively debate going on. Is coersion necessary, in the exumtion of information, from POW's. On antoher note, do you beleive those in Gitmo are POW's, or partisans, or what?

We must, of course, define coersion. See poll.


difficult read....but yes i do believe that if you must...by all means clamp the visegrips on someones fingertips if you really think they will spill their guts..if they are innocent..that will be apparent pretty quickly...toss them some money and a sorry if your wrong...it's called life.

think the folks chopping off heads have the same debate?

and no..i dont want to lower myself to their standard..but beheading and blowing up innocents is a fa cry from torturing a suspect...that their is really screened for intelligent value,it's not like they snatch people off the street willy nilly and torture them.

i would bet....if the gov grabs 1000 people....900 of them are complicit.
they grab people they really think are complicit...not some random thing as people suggest,and most times they are right.

i would not like to be tortured(or beheaded)but my odds are pretty fricken small that i will be tortured by my gov...but in happyland..odds are i'll get my head chopped off.

not to say people should be randomly tortured,but it is affective in some cases,and i hope they only torture those that they know they can get info from....the grist that gets caught in the mill...well...give them some loot.

difficult read....but yes i do believe that if you must...by all means clamp the visegrips on someones fingertips if you really think they will spill their guts..if they are innocent..that will be apparent pretty quickly...toss them some money and a sorry if your wrong...it's called life.
Torture seems to proceed from the assumption that the party being tortured is guilty. I don't think that a torturer will assume innocence and quit just because the person being tortured hasn't confessed yet, he'll just think his victim is still holding out. The lengths to which a torturer would have to go to be satisfied could very easily be crippling, mentally and physically.

And I'm not sure where you live, but I don't regard being randomly hauled away, tortured, and then released with some money and an apology as "life".

Torture seems to proceed from the assumption that the party being tortured is guilty. I don't think that a torturer will just quit early on because the person being tortured hasn't confessed yet, he'll just think his victim is still holding out. the lengths to which a torturer would have to go to be satisfied could very easily be crippling, mentally and physically.

And I'm not sure where you live, but I don't regard being randomly hauled away, tortured, and then released with some money and an apology as "life".

There's a reason people confessed to talking to the devil during the Which hunting craze.

There's a reason people confessed to talking to the devil during the Which hunting craze.

The devil forced them to do it.

*nods*

This is a lively debate going on. Is coercion necessary, in the exhumation of information, from POW's. On another note, do you believe those in Gitmo are POW's, or partisans, or what?

We must, of course, define coercion. See poll.
There are some innocents in Gitmo....some never charged.
NO to torture of any kind. The experts say that it doesn't work. I believe them!!

I'm not a big fan of torture. The psychological damage is much worse than the physical pain and can last for along time. Possibly in the most extreme of circumstances when there is an emergency and getting information as soon as possible is needed to avert an attack that could happen soon might be an acceptable reason, but than again the chances of that situation actually occurring are slim to none anyway.

I have metaphysical issues with torture, so I suppose I don't believe in it.

A cookie for whoever gets that.

Torture seems to proceed from the assumption that the party being tortured is guilty. I don't think that a torturer will assume innocence and quit just because the person being tortured hasn't confessed yet, he'll just think his victim is still holding out. The lengths to which a torturer would have to go to be satisfied could very easily be crippling, mentally and physically.

And I'm not sure where you live, but I don't regard being randomly hauled away, tortured, and then released with some money and an apology as "life".


i have to agree,torture is mostly futile...but to take it off the table sends a message to our enemies..a bad message.

i live in a country that protects my life and liberty...i was beaten stupid and hospialized by cops..but i digress.
my point was,in my country,most people dont need to worry about being tortured,and if they are...they will be well compensated.

i would go thru a torture session...to be found innocent,for a payday..lol

allthough someone made a point that the torturer would not be satisfied he had the whole truth,and the victim(and i do mean victim)had more to reveal.

i would argue that...i could break most anyone,and would know they have nothing to offer...it is foolish to think that the torturer is a robot..they are trained in human behaviour,and will know if someone is holding out or at the threshold of compliance.

to think otherwise is foolish.

No, torturers aren't robots, they're very Human. That's a problem. Torture isn't about gaining information, or a duty to one's country either for the torturer or the subject. It's a match of wills where one person has every means of force available and the other has none. It is usually drawn out long past its point of necessity or utility not because the torturer is a sadist (though one must be, to some extent, not to go mad in that line of work), but because it becomes a matter of personal dignity and honor that the subject be broken, just as much as the subject's dignity hinges on not breaking.

As for the political argument, it is incoherent. The US Government says at the same time that it does not torture, but that it must continue to torture to insure the safety of its people. The inherent dishonesty is damned near insulting to the audience of this appeal.

NO to torture of any kind. The experts say that it doesn't work. I believe them!!

and even that gives up too much ground.

torture is inherently unethical act. anyone engaging in it is committing crimes against humanity. anyone supporting its use is a horrible human being at best, who should never be allowed in a position of power of any sort. and anyone not vocally opposing torture once made aware of its use is complicit in the crimes.

torture is inherently unethical act.

Nothing is an "inherently unethical act."

Torture is ineffective and far too open to abuse, but it is not "inherently unethical."

Nothing is an "inherently unethical act."

i just can't play relativist well enough to concede that

i just can't play relativist well enough to concede that

After chattel slavery, torture is one of the most evil things that can be done to a human being, but I can't deny that I can conceive of circumstances in which it would be justified.

to bad US citizens will feel the full brunt of tourter by thier own government soon.

After chattel slavery, torture is one of the most evil things that can be done to a human being, but I can't deny that I can conceive of circumstances in which it would be justified.

i don't know that i would call it justified, even in the extreme situations which you probably have in mind. it'd be more like biting the bullet when faced with two terrible options. mitigation rather than justification, maybe.

Yes, I believe in torture. It makes the next step so much better.

i don't know that i would call it justified, even in the extreme situations which you probably have in mind. it'd be more like biting the bullet when faced with two terrible options. mitigation rather than justification, maybe.

The constraints of circumstance are not a moral failing. It is not something to be happy over, no, but nor is the choice one deserving of moral condemnation (except when it is not necessitated by circumstance, as, in the real world, is pretty much always the case.)

I have metaphysical issues with torture, so I suppose I don't believe in it.

A cookie for whoever gets that.
I getted it :p
*snatches cookie, eats cookie*

Torture is the stupidest idea ever. You can pretty much guarantee that sooner or later you'll get a "confession". Which puts you in a much worse place than you were before, because eventually both innocent and guilty prisoners will say the same thing-- that they committed whatever crime.

Torture shold be used strictly as a form of entertainment. :)

The constraints of circumstance are not a moral failing. It is not something to be happy over, no, but nor is the choice one deserving of moral condemnation (except when it is not necessitated by circumstance, as, in the real world, is pretty much always the case.)

i think the distinction i'm going for might be like that between justified homicide (self defense and the like) and somebody forced into a situation - by some stereotypical super villian, perahps - where they must either kill an innocent little girl in cold blood or allow a room full of people to die.

i want to say that that sucks and i'd hate to be in that position, but they still murdered a little girl. the action was perhaps the less unethical of the options, but it was still unethical. and due to the nature of the circumstances that forced this choice upon them, we will probably want forego assigning any punishment on them for it or even any expressions of moral condemnation. but that doesn't make for a positive ethical justification for killing little girls, it merely shows that we accept the existence of strong mitigating factors in this particular unethical act.

I find it difficult to believe those who declare that torture has never coerced a man to give useful information which he was unwilling to give. This sounds like a lie spread in order to decrease the use of torture. The ends justify the means. I believe that most everyone has a breaking point past which their morals are no longer solid and immovable. Since the only thing which prevents a person from revealing a secret is his morality, and some combination of mental, physical, and pharmaceutical torture will break almost anyone's morality down, torture can work.

The question though is "Should we use torture?" I say that we certainly should not use it on any normal POW. That goes beyond the pale and should be tried by a tribumal as a war crime.

I have less of a problem resorting to some torture when a foreign national spy is caught within our borders..He knows things we ought to and he is not operating as a soldier. If a citizen is caught knowingly providing information to a foreign spy to the degree that he is guilty of treason then Im not above saying we should find out what he knows via torture too. But only after he is found guilty and with a modicum restraint.

If we happen to capture a person in the middle of an actual attack on our soil by anyone other than the arrned forces of another nation who has declared war and we do not have complete knowlege of the attack then I advocate extracting the information from him as quickly as possible by any and all means available to us.

No, torturers aren't robots, they're very Human. That's a problem. Torture isn't about gaining information, or a duty to one's country either for the torturer or the subject. It's a match of wills where one person has every means of force available and the other has none. It is usually drawn out long past its point of necessity or utility not because the torturer is a sadist (though one must be, to some extent, not to go mad in that line of work), but because it becomes a matter of personal dignity and honor that the subject be broken, just as much as the subject's dignity hinges on not breaking.

As for the political argument, it is incoherent. The US Government says at the same time that it does not torture, but that it must continue to torture to insure the safety of its people. The inherent dishonesty is damned near insulting to the audience of this appeal.



i will say that everyone.../everyone has limits or breaking points....and if info can be gained..then so be it...would suck if it was my innocent self..but we did not make the rules..we play by them.

The question though is "Should we use torture?" I say that we certainly should not use it on any normal POW. That goes beyond the pale and should be tried by a tribumal as a war crime.

I have less of a problem resorting to some torture when a foreign national spy is caught within our borders..He knows things we ought to and he is not operating as a soldier. If a citizen is caught knowingly providing information to a foreign spy to the degree that he is guilty of treason then Im not above saying we should find out what he knows via torture too. But only after he is found guilty and with a modicum restraint.

If we happen to capture a person in the middle of an actual attack on our soil by anyone other than the arrned forces of another nation who has declared war and we do not have complete knowlege of the attack then I advocate extracting the information from him as quickly as possible by any and all means available to us.

fuck soldiers. torture stands or falls for everybody, not just favored groups.

Do I believe in torture? No. I do, however, believe in the Tickle Monster.

i will say that everyone.../everyone has limits or breaking points....and if info can be gained..then so be it...would suck if it was my innocent self..but we did not make the rules..we play by them.
This is called a democracy. We do make the rules. Don't know what you were doing in government class.

Oh yeah, speaking of that, there are a shitload of congressmen that need to be unelected. Pretty much anybody who voted for the Iraq war or for the Patriot Act.

i think the distinction i'm going for might be like that between justified homicide (self defense and the like) and somebody forced into a situation - by some stereotypical super villian, perahps - where they must either kill an innocent little girl in cold blood or allow a room full of people to die.

i want to say that that sucks and i'd hate to be in that position, but they still murdered a little girl. the action was perhaps the less unethical of the options, but it was still unethical. and due to the nature of the circumstances that forced this choice upon them, we will probably want forego assigning any punishment on them for it or even any expressions of moral condemnation. but that doesn't make for a positive ethical justification for killing little girls, it merely shows that we accept the existence of strong mitigating factors in this particular unethical act.

The two situations are indeed analogous, but I think you are misusing "mitigating."

If I kill someone because my judgment is impaired, then that is a mitigating factor - I did not intend to kill her, or I was not in my right mind, etc. If I plant and detonate a bomb in a crowded shopping mall because a terrorist threatens to kill my family otherwise, then the terrorist's threat is similarly a mitigating factor. In both of these cases my action is wrong, and is not a lesser evil. I ought not to have killed the person. I ought not to have blown up the mall. Yet because I am placed in circumstances where I cannot be reasonably expected to make the right choice, the severity of the crime is not as great as it would be otherwise -it is mitigated by other factors.

If, on the other hand, I kill someone because it is the "less unethical" thing to do, then circumstances do not merely mitigate my action, they justify it. I have done what I ought to have done; unless I could have somehow altered the circumstances, I have pursued the most moral course of action. Since I am not responsible for circumstances, I need not bear any moral guilt for my action.

we did not make the rules

then who does?

I find it difficult to believe those who declare that torture has never coerced a man to give useful information which he was unwilling to give. This sounds like a lie spread in order to decrease the use of torture. The ends justify the means. I believe that most everyone has a breaking point past which their morals are no longer solid and immovable. Since the only thing which prevents a person from revealing a secret is his morality, and some combination of mental, physical, and pharmaceutical torture will break almost anyone's morality down, torture can work.
No. Torture gets people the results they want to hear. This is all.
The question though is "Should we use torture?" I say that we certainly should not use it on any normal POW. That goes beyond the pale and should be tried by a tribumal as a war crime.
ANY prisoner should never be tortured.

Soldiers might just be conscripts, simply civilians, really, no?
I have less of a problem resorting to some torture when a foreign national spy is caught within our borders..He knows things we ought to and he is not operating as a soldier. If a citizen is caught knowingly providing information to a foreign spy to the degree that he is guilty of treason then Im not above saying we should find out what he knows via torture too. But only after he is found guilty and with a modicum restraint.
If they're doing something illegal - try them. This is all.

Torture is always out of the question.

Torture only on combatants who have broken the rules of war. (i.e. terrorists, not simply enemy soldiers) And give them a fair trial first, dammit. I'm not sure if torture works or not. I'm sceptical, but it's worth a shot anyway. The US and any others can torture the terrorists all they like if they believe they can get useful information. Just make sure they're terrorists first.

1st point : Exhumation=Remove from the earth, usually used in terms of graves. Or it could mean to bring long-forgotten things to light. It is not a word that works with forcible extraction of dubious knowledge through torture. (I know, its nit-picking, but it bothers me)

2nd point : Even if we do use torture to extract knowledge from the prisoners, we know that it is likely to be unreliable because of the pain they endure (they will say whatever will end the pain).

3rd point : We had knowledge that Al-Qaeda was planning an attack against the US well before the bombings, yet we did nothing. We had knowledge, as early as Feb. 2001, that Iraq had no WMDs (Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice among the many who testified to that in interviews between Feb. 2001 and Aug. 2001), yet a year and a half later we find that they, suddenly, have WMDs and are willing to use them on us (way to go joint intel. forces). Even if we get the knowledge we need from the people we are currently torturing, what guarantee do we have that the knowledge will:
A. not get lost in the paperwork
B. be ignored (See Pearl Harbor)
C. come to the attention of those in power in time
D. Be altered, misinterpreted, or be of any use

I believe torture violates the most fundamental principles of our modern, democratic societies. To think that we would condone and/or use it, disgusts me.

Torture shold be used strictly as a form of entertainment. :)

Lol thats a good option.
Simply: security forces need intel and have to extract it somehow. It is ok to do it to terrorist leaders and high ups etc. or when there is possibility of an imminent attack.
But systhematic torture to all prisoners is unacceptable! There are always 'some' innocent people victim of bad luck and circumstances. And with arrogance, hate and stereotyping the chances of more innocent victims being tortured increases. This makes civillians fear their own goverment forces and increases the number of sympathizers.

Do I believe in torture? No. I do, however, believe in the Tickle Monster.

:D

torture is already highly illegal, and everyone says they are against it, so why does it still go on. its just part of human nature, the oppurtunity will always be there for someone, and they will do it, and other people will go along with it

This is called a democracy. We do make the rules. Don't know what you were doing in government class.

then who does?
Why, the elected representors of course. If you think in a democracy that you make the laws you are mistaken - occassionally you may be called to vote on them, but it is definitely not the citizen who makes them. Democracies are not so called because power is universally exercised - it is because the author of Power is perceived to be the people. The actual Sovereign though is someone they entrust it with, for ill or for good, and this (these) individual(s) are the ones who order society.

Nothing is an "inherently unethical act."

Torture is ineffective and far too open to abuse, but it is not "inherently unethical."

After chattel slavery, torture is one of the most evil things that can be done to a human being, but I can't deny that I can conceive of circumstances in which it would be justified.
My sentiments too.

No. Torture gets people the results they want to hear. This is all.



that is a strong statement with no loopholes.
The thought that no tortured person has ever uttered anything except for things he was told to say by his torturer is ridiculous. You could not have meant that.

Im going to go out on a limb here and assume that you are writing about torture which is being used for the sort of purposes it was used for during the Spanish Inquisition, like a confession or something equally useless.

I would agree that torture is worse than useless as a means of law enforcement. Tortured people will tend towards admitting to any crime they are accused of. I agree that torture is reprehensible amd unconscienable to decent people. However we must disagree on the potential of torture to convince a victim to reveal tactical or other genuinely useful information, especially in conjunction with information which can be confirmed

Torture is not nice. Nobody is denying that. The problem is, if a prisoner is chosen to be tortured, there is probable cause to assume that he has information, which, when extracted from him, could prevent the deaths of possibly hundreds of soldiers or civilians, turn the tide of battle, or even win the entire war. Not having that kind of information is a high price to pay for the feeling of moral superiority you get from not hurting an enemy.

I understand, of course, that there is a chance that the torturee is actually innocent, and doesn't know anything. That's why I'll draw the line at permanent physical injury; if the wounds heal, the damage can be compensated. I would be ready to bend that rule, though, if the prisoner can be somehow proven beyond doubt to have the necessary information.

For those of you, who say NO torture EVER, I'd like you to present an alternative method of interrogation, that is more effective than torturing, and doesn't take months or years to succeed. It's just that I don't think saying "please" will melt the heart someone, whose life's purpose for the time being is to kill you and everyone of your kind.

I believe in torture. Not believing doesn't change anything. i.e., a Holocaust denier could believe the Holocaust never happened, but would obviously be wrong. Do I support torture? No, I do not.

Nothing is an "inherently unethical act."

Torture is ineffective and far too open to abuse, but it is not "inherently unethical."

No, I'm pretty sure it's inherently unethical.

Torture is not nice. Nobody is denying that. The problem is, if a prisoner is chosen to be tortured, there is probable cause to assume that he has information, which, when extracted from him, could prevent the deaths of possibly hundreds of soldiers or civilians, turn the tide of battle, or even win the entire war. Not having that kind of information is a high price to pay for the feeling of moral superiority you get from not hurting an enemy.

Of course, the use of torture is going to get us much, much, much more bullshit information than actual information - no matter what the tortured knows or doesnt.

Under torture, a person will confess to crimes they haven't committed, and will make things up to try and satisfy the people torturing them. John McCain (IIRC) has stated that, under torture in a POW camp, when asked for his superior officers names, he would recite baseball rosters to try and make the torture end.

that is a strong statement with no loopholes.
The thought that no tortured person has ever uttered anything except for things he was told to say by his torturer is ridiculous.
The only way it could ever possibly work would be to confirm something you already know. At that stage it's quite pointless as if you beat/shock/operate/drill/drown/hang or crush someone for long enough- they will tell you the sky is green- just to make you stop.

It is inherently unreliable. It is due to this mainly that it is not widespread in modern times, not ethics or the law- but sheer reliabilty and credibility.

and even that gives up too much ground.

torture is inherently unethical act. anyone engaging in it is committing crimes against humanity. anyone supporting its use is a horrible human being at best, who should never be allowed in a position of power of any sort. and anyone not vocally opposing torture once made aware of its use is complicit in the crimes.

:rolleyes:

The moral masturbation that is regularly on display on this board is truly amazing.

Oh, and just for the record: not all forceful interrogation methods constitute "torture", and to make that inane argument is to torture the definition of the word.

Broken bones: no
The threat of broken bones: yes

Iron maidens: no
Playing non-stop, high volume Iron Maiden records: yes

Dirt nap: no
Sleep deprivation: yes

"Please, please, Mr. Terrorist, tell us what your plans are! We'll be your best friends if you do! Please please please with sugar on it!": no
"Tell us what we want to know or we will make your life a living hell, and if we find out you're lying you will wish you'd never been born.": yes

Giving Geneva Convention POW status to illegal combatants not wearing a uniform, fighting for a nation or following an established chain of command: NO
Subjecting illegal combatants to forceful interrogation methods: YES

Broken bones: no
The threat of broken bones: yes

The threat of broken bones is useless if you definitely aren't going to act on it.

Giving Geneva Convention POW status to illegal combatants not wearing a uniform, fighting for a nation or following an established chain of command: NO
Subjecting illegal combatants to forceful interrogation methods: YES

IIRC, the Geneva Convention actually does cover provisions for how such a prisoner should be treated.

I'm not for torture not because I'm some bleeding heart liberal whos like "omg don't hurt the bad man" but more because it doesn't work. Plus if we torture, it gives others license to torture us. however if someone had to get roughed up a bit and it was never leaked, I don't know. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

i have to agree,torture is mostly futile...but to take it off the table sends a message to our enemies..a bad message.
It sends a worse message to our own people. It sends the message that our enemies' tactics are the right ones and that we should try to be like them as much as possible if we want to prevail. I do not think we beat bin Laden by becoming him.

i live in a country that protects my life and liberty...i was beaten stupid and hospialized by cops..but i digress.
my point was,in my country,most people dont need to worry about being tortured,and if they are...they will be well compensated.

i would go thru a torture session...to be found innocent,for a payday..lol.
I would enjoy very much to hear you make a monetary offer to a victim of torture in order to make it all up to them and call it even, with no hard feelings. I would just love to sit in on that pitch meeting.

allthough someone made a point that the torturer would not be satisfied he had the whole truth,and the victim(and i do mean victim)had more to reveal.

i would argue that...i could break most anyone,and would know they have nothing to offer...it is foolish to think that the torturer is a robot..they are trained in human behaviour,and will know if someone is holding out or at the threshold of compliance.

to think otherwise is foolish.

To think your way is ignorant. There have already been over 50 years of studies by social scientists, psychologists, military and law enforcement experts from many countries and many academic institutions that prove you wrong. It is -- or should be -- common knowledge by this point. Torture has an psychological momentum of its own, and torturers do not stop. They just keep going, regardless of how they are "trained." The mental requirement to dehumanize the victim to the point of being an object overwhelms all other "training." In practice, torturers do not look for human behavior cues in beings they do not even see as human at all.

Also, I am neither impressed nor convinced by your bragging about how good you are at torturing people.

i will say that everyone.../everyone has limits or breaking points....and if info can be gained..then so be it...would suck if it was my innocent self..but we did not make the rules..we play by them.

My enemies do not get to dictate the rules to me. They are not the boss of me. I do not do what they tell me to do.

You seem to be saying that we should all jump right on the bandwagon driven by our enemies and let them decide what kind of people we are going to be.

torture is already highly illegal, and everyone says they are against it, so why does it still go on. its just part of human nature, the oppurtunity will always be there for someone, and they will do it, and other people will go along with it

And that is what we call a bad thing.

To quote a famous movie: "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put on this Earth to rise above."

Torture is something that will always happen, and it is something that will always be wrong. I don't see a problem with a state doing it, the problem is if they try to pretend it's right. You can't have it both ways.

Torture is something that will always happen, and it is something that will always be wrong. I don't see a problem with a state doing it, the problem is if they try to pretend it's right. You can't have it both ways.

A state that commits crimes against humanity deserves to be overthrown and its leaders jailed. Admitting that they are committing the crimes does not make them any the less crimes. One can't have that both ways, either. We cannot avoid the consequences of our actions and choices; we cannot admit we are doing wrong and thus gain the right to keep doing wrong. The state that choose to torture dooms itself.

The two situations are indeed analogous, but I think you are misusing "mitigating."

If I kill someone because my judgment is impaired, then that is a mitigating factor - I did not intend to kill her, or I was not in my right mind, etc. If I plant and detonate a bomb in a crowded shopping mall because a terrorist threatens to kill my family otherwise, then the terrorist's threat is similarly a mitigating factor. In both of these cases my action is wrong, and is not a lesser evil. I ought not to have killed the person. I ought not to have blown up the mall. Yet because I am placed in circumstances where I cannot be reasonably expected to make the right choice, the severity of the crime is not as great as it would be otherwise -it is mitigated by other factors.

If, on the other hand, I kill someone because it is the "less unethical" thing to do, then circumstances do not merely mitigate my action, they justify it. I have done what I ought to have done; unless I could have somehow altered the circumstances, I have pursued the most moral course of action. Since I am not responsible for circumstances, I need not bear any moral guilt for my action.

it seems like we are just disagreeing on terminology. i would rather reserve 'justified' for cases where the action itself is right and not just a necessary evil.

surprisingly, i seem to have adopted the position of the israeli supreme court ("As for the defence of necessity, the court was prepared to accept necessity as a plea in mitigation, but not as a justification or an excuse"). it also flows out of the langauge of the un convention against torture (No exceptional circumstances whatsoever...may be invoked as a justification of torture). not that either of those things really matter between us, but it does show that my usage isn't completely off the wall.

if a prisoner is chosen to be tortured, there is probable cause to assume that he has information, which, when extracted from him, could prevent the deaths of possibly hundreds of soldiers or civilians, turn the tide of battle, or even win the entire war.

what the fuck sort of bizarro world do you live in?

surprisingly, i seem to have adopted the position of the israeli supreme court ("As for the defence of necessity, the court was prepared to accept necessity as a plea in mitigation, but not as a justification or an excuse"). it also flows out of the langauge of the un convention against torture (No exceptional circumstances whatsoever...may be invoked as a justification of torture). not that either of those things really matter between us, but it does show that my usage isn't completely off the wall.

As far as the legalities go, I'd tend towards their position. "Necessity" in such a circumstance is indeed mitigating rather than justifying, for to concede, on a legal level, that the act is anything but universally unacceptable would open up the door to horrific abuse. Nevertheless, if the torturer truly thought that her action was necessary, its severity is mitigated by that factor; it puts her above a torturer who does not care for necessity and sees little or nothing wrong with the act she commits.

All the accounts that I have read thus far of coersive interrogation techniques written by current or former interrogators suggest that torture simply doesn't work. It does not produce reliable information, as many people in this thread have pointed out. For some reason many people seem to be under the impression that the use of torture is the best and fastest method to get the information you need to know, and it's simply not true. Prisoners who are being abused really will tell you whatever they think you want to hear, whatever it takes, to make the abuse end.

Regardless of the moral or ethical issues surrounding the use of torture, it seems to be practically devoid of all merit as a valid way to gather intelligence.

The fact that morally and ethically definsible interrogation techniques can and do produce valid intelligence is all the more reason to denounce torture, in my opinion.

I'd like to quote Colbert by saying "Because Human Rights is something we should ALL compromise on."

Seriously, there should be no compromise in this. It erodes human dignity, not just of the prisoners, but of the whole of humanity. It prods people to stand against us, and I feel quite sure that this program has spawned any number of vengeful family members with vendettas againt the U.S.

It's a bad idea, justified only by hate. We treated the Nazis better than we treat these people. It needs to end, and it needs to end now.

Here we go, why not serve the detainees a full breakfast of eggs, oops almost said bacon, that's just wrong. Let's go with Honey nut cheerios in the AM, order them Subways and potato chips for lunch and a steak dinner with a baked potato for dinner.

Let's make sure that they get digital cable, a queen size bed.....etc...

Truth of the matter is I don't give a damn about the terrorists alleged human rights, I can care less if they are tortured. Do you think that they gave Daniel Pearl the royal treatment or anyother journalists or innocent civilians.
Hell no they didn't. The detainees in my book are actually living a hell of a lot better in Cuba than they were back in Afghanastan and Iraq. There fed 3 times a day, giving special treatment since their muslims. Yes some may be "innocent" but most are guilty. I don't have any sympathy to these viruses. Do you think the ones dressed and acted as civilians and then when our troops turn their backs.....bang. They're freaking cowards who will refuse to talk or confess if they're treated like royalty. I say, Hell yeah, torture the SOB's. I don't give a damn about no dang terrorists.

Here we go, why not serve the detainees a full breakfast of eggs, oops almost said bacon, that's just wrong. Let's go with Honey nut cheerios in the AM, order them Subways and potato chips for lunch and a steak dinner with a baked potato for dinner.

Let's make sure that they get digital cable, a queen size bed.....etc...

Truth of the matter is I don't give a damn about the terrorists alleged human rights, I can care less if they are tortured. Do you think that they gave Daniel Pearl the royal treatment or anyother journalists or innocent civilians.
Hell no they didn't. The detainees in my book are actually living a hell of a lot better in Cuba than they were back in Afghanastan and Iraq. There fed 3 times a day, giving special treatment since their muslims. Yes some may be "innocent" but most are guilty. I don't have any sympathy to these viruses. Do you think the ones dressed and acted as civilians and then when our troops turn their backs.....bang. They're freaking cowards who will refuse to talk or confess if they're treated like royalty. I say, Hell yeah, torture the SOB's. I don't give a damn about no dang terrorists.

God, I hope you're joking

Here we go, why not serve the detainees a full breakfast of eggs, oops almost said bacon, that's just wrong. Let's go with Honey nut cheerios in the AM, order them Subways and potato chips for lunch and a steak dinner with a baked potato for dinner.

Let's make sure that they get digital cable, a queen size bed.....etc...

Truth of the matter is I don't give a damn about the terrorists alleged human rights, I can care less if they are tortured. Do you think that they gave Daniel Pearl the royal treatment or anyother journalists or innocent civilians.
Hell no they didn't. The detainees in my book are actually living a hell of a lot better in Cuba than they were back in Afghanastan and Iraq. There fed 3 times a day, giving special treatment since their muslims. Yes some may be "innocent" but most are guilty. I don't have any sympathy to these viruses. Do you think the ones dressed and acted as civilians and then when our troops turn their backs.....bang. They're freaking cowards who will refuse to talk or confess if they're treated like royalty. I say, Hell yeah, torture the SOB's. I don't give a damn about no dang terrorists.

Where do you come up with this bullshit? We're asking for basic human dignity, not putting them up in the hilton. Just because our opposition doesn't possess any sense of basic human dignity doesn't mean we should emulate them.

God, I hope you're joking

Hell no I'm not joking. To be quite honest, I'm tired of people sympathizing for those damn yellow belly cowards. They're terrorists, so why should I feel bad for them. They're a disease, a virus. They have no concience and I thank God everyday that my God doesn't support strapping a bomb around me to kill innocent men, women, and children, better known as innocent civilians.

I have zero tolerance when it comes to terrorists. Am I going to feel bad for them if they get torture....Hell NO!!! I think they treated a heck of a lot better than they should be at Cuba.

Truth of the matter is I don't give a damn about the terrorists alleged human rights, I can care less if they are tortured. Do you think that they gave Daniel Pearl the royal treatment or anyother journalists or innocent civilians.

So you are saying that everyone detained in Guantanamo is personally responsible for the killing of Pearl, or for a similar act?

Hell no they didn't. The detainees in my book are actually living a hell of a lot better in Cuba than they were back in Afghanastan and Iraq. There fed 3 times a day, giving special treatment since their muslims.

What are you talking about? Being fed three times a day is "special treatment"?

Yes some may be "innocent" but most are guilty.

How do you know that?

According to the FBI expert on torture with terror suspects (on Good Morning America):

The best, most reliable and useful information, he said, came when the terrorist was treated well. Apparently, this was the only thing the terrorist were not trained by their brainwashing mentors to endure. Captured terrorists are prepared for torture. To learn that Americans actively believe in the dignity of fellow humans is apparently more powerfully persuasive than pain.

So you are saying that everyone detained in Guantanamo is personally responsible for the killing of Pearl, or for a similar act?



What are you talking about? Being fed three times a day is "special treatment"?



How do you know that?

You obviously didn't read my thread to careful.......No. I said their may be some innocent at Guantanamo but most are guilty of being terrorists.

Well, I'm sure our military didn't arrest the 2 guys that were playing patty cake.

Again, No I didn't say that being fed 3x is special treatment. I said due to the fact they're muslims they have certain special treatments. (example: Pork products are very cheap a lot of prisons serve pork due to the price and is very cost effective but muslims don't eat pork products becuase they feel it is dirty.

Why just mention physical torture?

Why is mental torture excluded so?

You obviously didn't read my thread to careful.......No. I said their may be some innocent at Guantanamo but most are guilty of being terrorists.

"Being terrorists" is fairly vague.

Well, I'm sure our military didn't arrest the 2 guys that were playing patty cake.

I do not doubt that for the most part, they intended to arrest guilty people. That does not mean that the people they actually arrested are guilty.

Again, No I didn't say that being fed 3x is special treatment. I said due to the fact they're muslims they have certain special treatments. (example: Pork products are very cheap a lot of prisons serve pork due to the price and is very cost effective but muslims don't eat pork products becuase they feel it is dirty.

That's not special treatment. Jewish prisoners would be afforded the same privilege.

You obviously didn't read my thread to careful.......No. I said their may be some innocent at Guantanamo but most are guilty of being terrorists.

Well, I'm sure our military didn't arrest the 2 guys that were playing patty cake.


The military dosen't generally conduct arrests when it does it can just be purely because the person was in the general direction they were attacked from. In Afghanistan, they paid the western alliance to arrest members of the Taliban for them which resulted in them grabbing the person who most looked like a terrorist off the street. Also the Iraqi police also contribute to the prison populace and they're hardly trustworthy.

I said their may be some innocent at Guantanamo but most are guilty of being terrorists.

on what evidence do you base that?

If only we lived in a perfect world.

It's life and get over it.

on what evidence do you base that?

on what evidence do you oppose that?

on what evidence do you oppose that?

This is the basis I oppose it

The military dosen't generally conduct arrests when it does it can just be purely because the person was in the general direction they were attacked from. In Afghanistan, they paid the western alliance to arrest members of the Taliban for them which resulted in them grabbing the person who most looked like a terrorist off the street. Also the Iraqi police also contribute to the prison populace and they're hardly trustworthy.

If only we lived in a perfect world.

It's life and get over it.

It's a country that can be changed by the political actions of its citizens. I'm not sure where you live, but people here don't just "get over" life, we try to change it. Acceptance of practices that estrange us from the rest of the world and operate at best as an unreliable means of gathering intelligence only signifies incredible ignorance, apathy, or laziness.

Torture of POWs from a country which signed and practice under the Geneva Convention?
NO!

Torture of terrorists, Al Quaida members, especially those that behead, slaughter, maim and murder, their prisoners ("POWs") or kidnap and murder civilians and soldiers?
HELL FU*KIN YEAH!!!

If they were to treat our soldiers with respect and reasonable comfort we should do like wise. If they shoot, behead, disembowl, slit throats, torture our soldiers, well, we should respond in kind. These types of people only understand one thing..... violence and force. it is unfortunate that we have to lower ourselves to their level, but that would be the only way to get through to them, to show them we mean business. Giving a terrorist a nice warm room, with the koran, three specialty meals a day, exercse, and all over being nice to them, will not make them talk. We know they are ready to die for their cause, but ...... are they willing to take a red hot iron oker in the ass?? Think about it.

Torture of POWs from a country which signed and practice under the Geneva Convention?
NO!

Torture of terrorists, Al Quaida members, especially those that behead, slaughter, maim and murder, their prisoners ("POWs") or kidnap and murder civilians and soldiers?
HELL FU*KIN YEAH!!!

If they were to treat our soldiers with respect and reasonable comfort we should do like wise. If they shoot, behead, disembowl, slit throats, torture our soldiers, well, we should respond in kind. These types of people only understand one thing..... violence and force. it is unfortunate that we have to lower ourselves to their level, but that would be the only way to get through to them, to show them we mean business. Giving a terrorist a nice warm room, with the koran, three specialty meals a day, exercse, and all over being nice to them, will not make them talk. We know they are ready to die for their cause, but ...... are they willing to take a red hot iron oker in the ass?? Think about it.

Oh right, its ok if they're accused of really bad things.

Oh right, its ok if they're accused of really bad things.

no, its when you see them take one of our soldiers, broadcast over the web. They beat them, say "We are doing this for Allah!" then slice their heads off screaming, "Allauh Akbar!!!" Yeah, I am sure they are really nice people when you get to know them. We know who did it, no trial, no jury, just a swift execution. Hell, we did it with the Wherewolves back in 1945-47 in Germany.

Why just mention physical torture?

Why is mental torture excluded so?

Because then we'd have to shut down this forum. :p

no, its when you see them take one of our soldiers, broadcast over the web. They beat them, say "We are doing this for Allah!" then slice their heads off screaming, "Allauh Akbar!!!" Yeah, I am sure they are really nice people when you get to know them. We know who did it, no trial, no jury, just a swift execution. Hell, we did it with the Wherewolves back in 1945-47 in Germany.

How do you know we know? Got a friend in the CIA who can tell you that? A secret source that leaks the individual details of each detainee's actions and history?

If only we lived in a perfect world.

It's life and get over it.

No. You don't get your way that easily.

If only we lived in a perfect world.

It's life and get over it.

Well; rape, cancers and famine wouldn't happen in a perfect world, but they should just "get over it", eh?

no, its when you see them take one of our soldiers, broadcast over the web. They beat them, say "We are doing this for Allah!" then slice their heads off screaming, "Allauh Akbar!!!" Yeah, I am sure they are really nice people when you get to know them. We know who did it, no trial, no jury, just a swift execution. Hell, we did it with the Wherewolves back in 1945-47 in Germany.

No, the Russains probably did but we didn't do it then even the worst offenders and organisers of mass genocide were given fair trials at nuremburg.

Just nipple torture and some light bondage ...maybe a little spanking .

No, the Russains probably did but we didn't do it then even the worst offenders and organisers of mass genocide were given fair trials at nuremburg.

Actuatlly the order of the day in post war Germany to all US Soldiers in dealing with any Wherewolves found was to shoot on sight. And we did. There is a book out there on that somewhere about a US solder who was doing just that.

According to the FBI expert on torture with terror suspects (on Good Morning America):

The best, most reliable and useful information, he said, came when the terrorist was treated well. Apparently, this was the only thing the terrorist were not trained by their brainwashing mentors to endure. Captured terrorists are prepared for torture. To learn that Americans actively believe in the dignity of fellow humans is apparently more powerfully persuasive than pain.

It seems pretty clear to me that there is no logic behind the pro-torture argument. It does not produce results. It creates more enemies than it eliminates. Every problem it is applied to, it makes worse. It destroys both the public and private honor of the people who engage in it. And there are many honorable and effective means of getting what we need from prisoners without torturing them. Plus, it's illegal.

Yet despite all that you still get proponents of it. When you press them on their reasoning, it always devolves down to the same things -- anger and revenge. They are angry at their enemies and want to hurt them. That is all there is to it. The fact that they will be hurting themselves and all the rest of us in the process is immaterial to them.

My grandmother used to call it "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

No, the Russains probably did but we didn't do it then even the worst offenders and organisers of mass genocide were given fair trials at nuremburg.

I wonder if he is referring to a lie recently promulgated by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel, about an incident at a French village. I can't remember the name -- Malmedy or something like that. Anyway, O'Reilly, in defending torture of prisoners of war, claimed that US soldiers had executed German SS prisoners of war and left their bodies piled in a mass grave outside that village.

In fact, the exact opposite is the truth. It was the SS that murdered US soldiers who had been captured.

If they were to treat our soldiers with respect and reasonable comfort we should do like wise. If they shoot, behead, disembowl, slit throats, torture our soldiers, well, we should respond in kind.

But MoooooommmmmM!!!!!!! He did it first!!!!!!!!!

Actuatlly the order of the day in post war Germany to all US Soldiers in dealing with any Wherewolves found was to shoot on sight. And we did. There is a book out there on that somewhere about a US solder who was doing just that.

Shooting on sight is not torture. The Werewolves were a combat unit of the SS that followed a take-no-prisoners policy and attacked civilians as well as military targets. They were among the most dangerous and vicious soldiers in the field, and therefore, the shoot-on-sight order was prudent.

But it was not the equivalent of a US government policy of condoning and practicing torture.

Torture does not work. It is an inhuman form of interregation, and it is extremely unreliable. As such, I do not believe in the effectiveness of or need for torture.

I think it says a lot about the current administration how they've dealt with this issue. (How poorly they have dealt with it...)



Truth of the matter is I don't give a damn about the terrorists alleged human rights, I can care less if they are tortured. Do you think that they gave Daniel Pearl the royal treatment or anyother journalists or innocent civilians.
[...]
Yes some may be "innocent" but most are guilty. I don't have any sympathy to these viruses.
So you don't mind innocent people being tortured...

And you complain about the terrorists treatment of civilians when you have the same mindset as them? Interesting...

Do you think the ones dressed and acted as civilians and then when our troops turn their backs.....bang. They're freaking cowards who will refuse to talk or confess if they're treated like royalty. I say, Hell yeah, torture the SOB's. I don't give a damn about no dang terrorists.
Good. To bad they're not proven to be terrorists yet. I'll remember your words when you're picked up and rendered to another country for a little torture and interrogation. Kinda like Maher Arar, for example.

Yes that is another great point that I neglected to mention in my original post. The Geneva Convention....Terrorists, al-queda and the likes are NOT qualified under the Geneva Convention. The geneva convention is for the civilized nations who have their military uniforms not dress and hide amongst civilians. They don't cover those who strap bombs around themselves and declare war against innocent civilians. It does NOT cover the ones who enjoy beheading innocent civilians including the journalists, So again I say Torture the viruses they are.

Yes that is another great point that I neglected to mention in my original post. The Geneva Convention....Terrorists, al-queda and the likes are NOT qualified under the Geneva Convention. The geneva convention is for the civilized nations who have their military uniforms not dress and hide amongst civilians. They don't cover those who strap bombs around themselves and declare war against innocent civilians. It does NOT cover the ones who enjoy beheading innocent civilians including the journalists, So again I say Torture the viruses they are.
Even if the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, torture is still prohibited under international law.

Yes that is another great point that I neglected to mention in my original post. The Geneva Convention....Terrorists, al-queda and the likes are NOT qualified under the Geneva Convention. The geneva convention is for the civilized nations who have their military uniforms not dress and hide amongst civilians. They don't cover those who strap bombs around themselves and declare war against innocent civilians. It does NOT cover the ones who enjoy beheading innocent civilians including the journalists, So again I say Torture the viruses they are.

Hmm, funny, you sound like a terrorist to me...

Prove me wrong...

Hmm, funny, you sound like a terrorist to me...

Prove me wrong...

You might have to waterboard him for two or three months to make sure. ;)

Yes that is another great point that I neglected to mention in my original post. The Geneva Convention....Terrorists, al-queda and the likes are NOT qualified under the Geneva Convention. The geneva convention is for the civilized nations who have their military uniforms not dress and hide amongst civilians. They don't cover those who strap bombs around themselves and declare war against innocent civilians. It does NOT cover the ones who enjoy beheading innocent civilians including the journalists, So again I say Torture the viruses they are.

This is a favorite loophole of the pro-torture crowd. Too bad it doesn't exist. The Geneva Conventions are not a closed agreement, meaning that they do not only apply to the signatories. When countries sign the Conventions, they are agreeing to apply its standards to all their prisoners. There is no requirement that only prisoners from countries that also signed the Geneva Conventions have to be treated like human beings.

Hmm, funny, you sound like a terrorist to me...

Prove me wrong...

Well, lets see hear......First I was born and raised in the USA. My family and friends can vouch for me. I have my current job working for a company who actually saves lives for the past 5 and a half years. I have worked for where I am at in life and have also worked for the good reputation I have in the Real World. Here's the kicker though....I voted for Bush both times....:D

I also have an American flag 4'x6' on the wall of my bedroom along with one 3'x5' flying on a flag pole out front of my house. I don't burn the flag I cherish the flags.

Well, lets see hear......First I was born and raised in the USA. My family and friends can vouch for me. I have my current job working for a company who actually saves lives for the past 5 and a half years. I have worked for where I am at in life and have also worked for the good reputation I have in the Real World. Here's the kicker though....I voted for Bush both times....:D

Oh, so you admit to being one of the enemy! Get the electrodes!!

Well, lets see hear......First I was born and raised in the USA. My family and friends can vouch for me. I have my current job working for a company who actually saves lives for the past 5 and a half years. I have worked for where I am at in life and have also worked for the good reputation I have in the Real World. Here's the kicker though....I voted for Bush both times....:D

How does any of that provide any evidence whatsoever that you are not a terrorist?

:rolleyes:

The moral masturbation that is regularly on display on this board is truly amazing.

Oh, and just for the record: not all forceful interrogation methods constitute "torture", and to make that inane argument is to torture the definition of the word.

Broken bones: no
The threat of broken bones: yes

Iron maidens: no
Playing non-stop, high volume Iron Maiden records: yes

Dirt nap: no
Sleep deprivation: yes

"Please, please, Mr. Terrorist, tell us what your plans are! We'll be your best friends if you do! Please please please with sugar on it!": no
"Tell us what we want to know or we will make your life a living hell, and if we find out you're lying you will wish you'd never been born.": yes

Giving Geneva Convention POW status to illegal combatants not wearing a uniform, fighting for a nation or following an established chain of command: NO
Subjecting illegal combatants to forceful interrogation methods: YES
Moral masturbation huh? Are you one of those right wing Christians that think that it is okay to torture people?

Are you an expert on torture methodolgy?

What if the suspect is totally innocent like all those that have already been released from Gitmo and Abu Gharib?

No. There's no such thing as torture, there's simply depraved terrorist practices and enlightened American interrogation. Next question?

Well, lets see hear......First I was born and raised in the USA. My family and friends can vouch for me. I have my current job working for a company who actually saves lives for the past 5 and a half years. I have worked for where I am at in life and have also worked for the good reputation I have in the Real World. Here's the kicker though....I voted for Bush both times....:D


I see. Long term infiltration? Working undercover? Got recruited over the net, didn't you? Seems like we're gonna have to get "Guantanamo" on "yo ass".

I'm strictly against any form of torture, including even things like playing loud music all the day. (If you play the right song for 5 hours - I would confess anything to stop it.)

In Germany, a son of a banker was kidnapped. Soon the kidnapper was arrested, but they didn't find the son. So the police chief threatend the kidnapper. He told him, he would torture him, if he won't tell, where he was hiding the child.

The kidnapper told it - but he has already killed the kid, so it was to late. The chief was punished for his threads afterwards, because this was forbidden.

After this case, there was a similar debate in Germany. But I still think, torture doesn't help anything, especially in the "war" against terror. Today, there was a picture in the newspaper. It showed a wall in Iran, on which two pictures of Abu Graib were hanging. If you torture the assumedly terrorists, you rise the hatred in the muslim countries, and you recruit new terrorists.

And I remember another case from Germany. One suspected terrorist was captured by the police. At first he didn't talk. But they treated him with respect. And guess, after a few months he talked - without any torture. He didn't expect to be treated fair. But after a few months, he recognized, that the Germans aren't the evil enemies.

This is a favorite loophole of the pro-torture crowd. Too bad it doesn't exist. The Geneva Conventions are not a closed agreement, meaning that they do not only apply to the signatories. When countries sign the Conventions, they are agreeing to apply its standards to all their prisoners. There is no requirement that only prisoners from countries that also signed the Geneva Conventions have to be treated like human beings.

Okay then to end the debate on the Geneva Convention, I'm going to say something that will most likely piss some people off but what the hell.

We in America (USA) do not and will not give into the demands of terrorism and we will NOT listen to other nations tell us what and how to do something. We are not perfect as a nation and neither are you.

It's really a shame how some people have more sympathy for terrorists and their friends than you do for the innocent civilians. A crying shame.

Okay then to end the debate on the Geneva Convention, I'm going to say something that will most likely piss some people off but what the hell.

We in America (USA) do not and will not give into the demands of terrorism and we will NOT listen to other nations tell us what and how to do something. We are not perfect as a nation and neither are you.

It's really a shame how some people have more sympathy for terrorists and their friends than you do for the innocent civilians. A crying shame.


It's unbelievable that you STILL don't get it. You see, they are not tortured BECAUSE they are terrorists. They are tortured so the torturers can FIND OUT IF they are terrorists. Why? Because they're too fucking incompetent to come up with proof, so the only thing that can even resemble success and justify billions of dollars in spending are confessions. Confessions under torture, that don't mean jack shit.

Not convinced yet? Why don't you try it then. Ask a friend (a real close one) to "torture" you. Ya know, inflict pain. And tell him he's not supposed to stop until he gets the answer he wants to the question he wants to ask.
Let's say, something simple, like "did you ever cheat on your wife?" Imagine the answer he wants to hear is "yes".

Then time how long it takes for you to give him that answer.

Well, lets see hear......First I was born and raised in the USA. My family and friends can vouch for me. I have my current job working for a company who actually saves lives for the past 5 and a half years. I have worked for where I am at in life and have also worked for the good reputation I have in the Real World. Here's the kicker though....I voted for Bush both times....:D

I also have an American flag 4'x6' on the wall of my bedroom along with one 3'x5' flying on a flag pole out front of my house. I don't burn the flag I cherish the flags.

And an idolator, too.

Okay then to end the debate on the Geneva Convention, I'm going to say something that will most likely piss some people off but what the hell.

We in America (USA) do not and will not give into the demands of terrorism and we will NOT listen to other nations tell us what and how to do something. We are not perfect as a nation and neither are you.

It's really a shame how some people have more sympathy for terrorists and their friends than you do for the innocent civilians. A crying shame.

I have no sympathy for terrorists, and I would be happy, if we can end terrorsim. But do you know, why people become terrorists? Because they are evil people who like to blow up innoncent children?

No the reason is, that they hate the western countries, especially the USA, for being treated as criminals. And if they see pictures of bombs on Bagdadh or torture in American prisons, there hate grows. To stop this kind of terrorism, you have to do several things. One thing is, that you should treat the arabs in general with respect. And you should give them the same rights, you want to defend.

Of course this would be not enough. I belive, a huge problem is the media in many arab countries. They are often extremly biased and stoke hatred among the people. This is something, which has to change.

But do you think, a young arab will think: "Oh, the western democracies have a real good system, they are our friends?", if he sees pictures of Abu Graibe or Guantanamo?

You must try to put yourself in an arabs place to understand, why they become terrorists, and then you can think about ways to stop terrorism.

Well, lets see hear......First I was born and raised in the USA. My family and friends can vouch for me. I have my current job working for a company who actually saves lives for the past 5 and a half years. I have worked for where I am at in life and have also worked for the good reputation I have in the Real World. Here's the kicker though....I voted for Bush both times....:D

I also have an American flag 4'x6' on the wall of my bedroom along with one 3'x5' flying on a flag pole out front of my house. I don't burn the flag I cherish the flags.
Hmm... Seems it will take a lot of torture to get you to admit to the truth, that you are, in fact, a terrorist. No matter, we have plenty of time. Years, in fact...

Okay then to end the debate on the Geneva Convention, I'm going to say something that will most likely piss some people off but what the hell.

We in America (USA) do not and will not give into the demands of terrorism and we will NOT listen to other nations tell us what and how to do something.
Your president and his administration disagrees with you.

It's really a shame how some people have more sympathy for terrorists and their friends than you do for the innocent civilians. A crying shame.
I was thinking the same about you, since you accept the torture of innocent people.

I think that Torture is a horrible Idea (See: Templars, Inquisitions, Witch Hunts, etc.) However, if you use Aggressive interrogations (See: Muzzled Dogs, Sleep Deprivation, Water Boarding, Good cop/Bad Cop, etc.) then that is okay. It is all in how you do it. Commit physical acts of violence: Bad. Freak them out so that they talk without hurting them: Good.

Secondly, the clasification of a POW. To quote the Geneva Conventions, there are a set of rules one must follow to gain th title of "Legal Combatant" and there fore "POW"

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

that second part is the most important

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


Please note the following

A. With the apparent exception of Hezbollah, Terror Groups are highly decentralized, meaning that there is no Supreme Commander who is responsible for the acts of his subordinates

B. The Terrorists avoid wearing insignia at all costs, knowing that they can do more damage by not wearing said insignia.

C. They hide their weapons in Mosques, Hospitals, Schools, Civillian Housing, or places so close that opposing forces cannot use explosives to take out the building. Note, Mosques, Schools, etc. are considered to be places off limits to all members of the warring parties.

D. They do not respect the Geneva Convention at all. Exhibit A: they kill and torture our soldiers, people who, for the most part, foloow the rules of war in the above regards. They deliberately target civillian targets. Exhibit B: a water treatment plant in Baghdad was bombed for the fourth time in July, because the engineers continuously rebuilt it.

For that reason, the people in Club Gitmo do not deserve POW treatment, as they violate the rules of war defining a "Legal Combatant" and are therefore "Illegal Combatants"

You know what you are all right...Let's end Guantanamo, all together.......I say bomb the SOB's...........:D

You know what you are all right...Let's end Guantanamo, all together.......I say bomb the SOB's...........:D

Lol, bomb Gitmo. I torture the devil enough that I don't want to do that. It would be cruel to every demon in hell if we killed all the people in Gitmo.

Okay then to end the debate on the Geneva Convention, I'm going to say something that will most likely piss some people off but what the hell.

We in America (USA) do not and will not give into the demands of terrorism and we will NOT listen to other nations tell us what and how to do something. We are not perfect as a nation and neither are you.

It's really a shame how some people have more sympathy for terrorists and their friends than you do for the innocent civilians. A crying shame.

Another lie of the pro-torture crowd. Being against torture is NOT an expression of sympathy for terrorists. This is nothing but an attempt to demonize those who oppose your views.

You may excuse your desire to harm others as being "not perfect" and think that makes it okay. You may also think it's okay to back out on your sworn oaths and agreements the first time it really counts, when you are really challenged to stand on principle. My self respect won't allow me to do that.

I say that to engage in torture would put us on the same level as the terrorists, and I refuse to lower myself that way. And I will not allow my country to debase itself that way, either. And if I cannot stop it from wallowing in the same filth as the terrorists, then I will blame my own country for it and do my best to see its leaders and all those who condone and carry out torture punished for it under the law.

Death before dishonor. That is what it's all about. If you can't understand that, I won't be surprised.

For that reason, the people in Club Gitmo do not deserve POW treatment, as they violate the rules of war defining a "Legal Combatant" and are therefore "Illegal Combatants"
Ah, had they only been tried before a competent tribunal and found to be Illegal Combatants as per the rules you mentioned...

Okay then to end the debate on the Geneva Convention, I'm going to say something that will most likely piss some people off but what the hell.
Okay. I will try to keep an open mind. :D

We in America (USA) do not and will not give into the demands of terrorism and we will NOT listen to other nations tell us what and how to do something.
Do you assume that you speak for ALL Americans when you make these declarations?

Do you assume that MOST Americans approve of torture?

We are not perfect as a nation and neither are you.
No nation is perfect that is true, but if you want to spread American style "democracy", then you need to look to the roots of your democracy and apply those principles in all of your endeavours. Methinks that torture is not part of your Constitution?

It's really a shame how some people have more sympathy for terrorists and their friends than you do for the innocent civilians. A crying shame.
It is not a matter of "having more sympathy for terrorists", it is a matter of basic human rights. If your country cannot offer those basic human rights to those that they would "liberate", then your country has no right to declare that they are spreading "democracy".

Ah, had they only been tried before a competent tribunal and found to be Illegal Combatants as per the rules you mentioned...

Isn't "illegal combatant" a Bush phrase anyway? Just a way of denying someone their basic human rights so you can do whatever you want with them. Makes things much easier if you don't have to worry about "laws" restraining your behavior doesn't it?

From most recent news:

Bush: Without my plan, detainee questioning won't continue (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/15/bush/)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Questioning of suspected terrorists "won't go forward" unless Congress clarifies a U.S. standard for the treatment and interrogation of detainees, President Bush warned Friday.

The remarks appeared to be an attempt to put Congress on the spot about the future of a program that Bush says has helped thwart terrorism.

"Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland," Bush said in defense of his plan for military tribunals for terror suspects. (Watch Bush stand firm on his detainee standards -- 3:44)

His Rose Garden news conference was the latest salvo in White House efforts to write new rules that Bush said would clarify how Geneva Conventions provisions apply to detainee interrogations.

Critics, including three high-profile Republican senators and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, say it's an interpretation that could threaten the safety of U.S. forces overseas.

"You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law," Bush said. "If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules ... the program is not going forward."

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, is among several powerful Republicans who have denounced Bush's proposal, which the president said is vital to winning the war on terrorism. (Watch as Bush urges clarity on Conventions -- 3:05)

McCain said after Bush's speech that he respected the president's position. But, he said, "The protection our personnel require is not limited to freedom from lawsuits and unjust criminal prosecutions. They also need -- and deserve -- the undiluted protections offered since 1949 by the Geneva Conventions.

"For this reason, I oppose unilaterally reinterpreting in law Geneva Common Article 3," McCain said.

Article 3 prohibits nations engaged in combat from "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." (Read the full text of Article 3)

Powell, a retired four-star Army general, wrote a letter to McCain that was released Wednesday in which he stated, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

"To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts," Powell wrote. "Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."

McCain echoed Powell's sentiment after Bush's speech, saying that weakening the Geneva protections would set a poor example for "other countries with less respect for basic human rights."
Bush's agenda robs Americans of their dignity.

CanuckHeaven Okay, I'm not as much of a bastard as some of my most rescent threads but it boils my blood sometimes by how vicious some people become for having a different view.

No I do not speak for the majority on declarations and the approval of torture. To be fair, I'm against torture for the most part but I would turn my head to the more mild types,there is so many different torture techniques.

I wish others debated like you. I throw in the towel. You win.

With that being said, I still do not feel that al-queda or the other terrorists should be treated under the geneva convention though. Peace :)

CanuckHeaven Okay, I'm not as much of a bastard as some of my most rescent threads but it boils my blood sometimes by how vicious some people become for having a different view.

No I do not speak for the majority on declarations and the approval of torture. To be fair, I'm against torture for the most part but I would turn my head to the more mild types,there is so many different torture techniques and only to the known terrorists.

I wish others debated like you. I throw in the towel. You win.

With that being said, I still do not feel that al-queda or the other terrorists should be treated under the geneva convention though. Peace :)

Hell no I'm not joking. To be quite honest, I'm tired of people sympathizing for those damn yellow belly cowards. They're terrorists, so why should I feel bad for them. They're a disease, a virus. They have no concience and I thank God everyday that my God doesn't support strapping a bomb around me to kill innocent men, women, and children, better known as innocent civilians.

I have zero tolerance when it comes to terrorists. Am I going to feel bad for them if they get torture....Hell NO!!! I think they treated a heck of a lot better than they should be at Cuba.

Well said! :D

Torture only on combatants who have broken the rules of war. (i.e. terrorists, not simply enemy soldiers) And give them a fair trial first, dammit. I'm not sure if torture works or not. I'm sceptical, but it's worth a shot anyway. The US and any others can torture the terrorists all they like if they believe they can get useful information. Just make sure they're terrorists first.

gotta agree with the fair trial thing...and if found guilty of being a scumbag kid killer..then he gets his just deserts...if not...release him...

i am not an animal after all.

and i would say that most westerners dont get fair trials and such..before being tortured and killed by our noble adversaries..

that said,i have been abused by authority..hospitalised to be honest,and i do not wish that on anyone...unless they are judged to be killers of innocents.
then all niceties are out the proverbial window...because i simply dont buy the argument that no one is above retribution for their acts.

i will agree that they should be not taken to some secret place...tortured then whatever...as my previous posts may have implied...but if they are found to be culpable in acts of terrorism,then all means should be brought to bear to prevent further atrocities.

i suppose i did not make my self clear..torture is ok if and when your beyond the reasonable doubt threshhold...

as i said,i was suspected of a crime,and was tortured,prior to being charged and judged.

so i feel pretty strongly about this,but to take torture off the table is foolish.

oh,and i believe that we should hold the moral high ground,and not to stoop to the level of the murderous scum that attack us.

ergo trials,i dissagree with bush on this,but i dont dissagree that torture is a valid tool to obtain info.

If you torture the assumedly terrorists, you rise the hatred in the muslim countries, and you recruit new terrorists.

Just imagine all the new terrorists that have been recruited in Israel and among the families of 9/11 victims. And Daniel Pearl's family, well I hear their hatred has really been raised.

What's that you say? There aren't any such terrorist recruits?

Oh, I forgot. Terrorists are typically recruited from among Muslims, frequently as a response to other Muslims paying the price for their earlier terrorist acts. My mistake :headbang:

My enemies do not get to dictate the rules to me. They are not the boss of me. I do not do what they tell me to do.

You seem to be saying that we should all jump right on the bandwagon driven by our enemies and let them decide what kind of people we are going to be.

i think you missed my point..i am not "for" torture,i am saying it should not be taken off the table.

It sends a worse message to our own people. It sends the message that our enemies' tactics are the right ones and that we should try to be like them as much as possible if we want to prevail. I do not think we beat bin Laden by becoming him.


I would enjoy very much to hear you make a monetary offer to a victim of torture in order to make it all up to them and call it even, with no hard feelings. I would just love to sit in on that pitch meeting.



To think your way is ignorant. There have already been over 50 years of studies by social scientists, psychologists, military and law enforcement experts from many countries and many academic institutions that prove you wrong. It is -- or should be -- common knowledge by this point. Torture has an psychological momentum of its own, and torturers do not stop. They just keep going, regardless of how they are "trained." The mental requirement to dehumanize the victim to the point of being an object overwhelms all other "training." In practice, torturers do not look for human behavior cues in beings they do not even see as human at all.

Also, I am neither impressed nor convinced by your bragging about how good you are at torturing people.

i was not trying to impress anyone,i have never intentionally hurt someone,and the thought of seeing even a guilty person tortured would make me vomit.
i was saying,that even i could come up with ways to make you talk,let alone people that have dehumanized themselves to the point it does not affect them,as it would most assuredly bother me.

you may be correct in thinking the torturer has trained to not think of the victim as human,but an object...but i still argue that most will capitulate and give info givin the amount of pressure applied to them.

that is not the debate,as i understand it..it was can it be effective.

state all the studies you want,i am convinced if someone tortured me,i would at some point give it up..
the real argument is are they telling you what you want to hear(truthful or not)to get you to stop!

and i was married...so torture can be quite subtle..it aint always drilling holes in your knees with a power drill.

so now define the definition of torture?

i have had the pleasure of being tortured physically(handcuffed and beaten..4 broken ribs and a broken cheek bone....actually soiled myself,to the laughter of the offenders,and have had the pleasure of being tortured by my ex....more subtle...but equally painfull..lol

This is a favorite loophole of the pro-torture crowd. Too bad it doesn't exist. The Geneva Conventions are not a closed agreement, meaning that they do not only apply to the signatories. When countries sign the Conventions, they are agreeing to apply its standards to all their prisoners. There is no requirement that only prisoners from countries that also signed the Geneva Conventions have to be treated like human beings.

Those who make arguments based on the Geneva Conventions should have some idea of what the Conventions actually say:

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949

entry into force 21 October 1950

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Article 2

[Paragraph 3] Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.


Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

Adopted on 12 August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, held in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August, 1949

entry into force 21 October 1950

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Article 2

[Paragraph 3] Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

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.

Article 5

Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

Article 31
No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.

*****

I submit that Islamo-Nazi terrorists and others acting in a similar manner fail to qualify either as "prisoners of war" under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, or as "protected persons" under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Accordingly, such terrorists are not entitled to any of the protections enumerated in the Geneva Conventions for "prisoners of war" or for "protected persons." What they are entitled to is the application of sufficiently vigorous coercion, short of actual physical mutilation, to extract all useful information from them.

To argue otherwise is grounded in ignorance of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions at best, more likely is intellectually dishonest, and at worst constitutes a misguided, or even deliberate, attempt to protect terrorists from the consequences of their evil activities.

you may be correct in thinking the torturer has trained to not think of the victim as human,but an object...but i still argue that most will capitulate and give info givin the amount of pressure applied to them.


Then you think wrong. Sure, you'll get "info" of a sort - you'll get whatever you want to hear most.

Well, allow me to join the fun, shall we? Mmm... I'm feeling playful today. A reference to a fighting game, maybe?

Whoever here plays or played King of Fighters must have heard of Yagami's Ya Otome, the Eight Maidens, also known as Maiden Masher.

I decided to constrain myself to a form that will remind a gamer of that 8-hit chain combo - in that it keeps connected, developing only one premise - just to show that, even thus constrained, I can win the argument.

It also adds STYLE! :D

The bold parts are in Japanese - a reference to moments of the move in which the character says these things...

So, allow me to present it to you, discussion version...

(Asobi wa owari da!)

The people that favor torture claim it helps prevent attacks, and, thus, claim they're doing their country a favor with it.

(And now it begins.)

However, studies show that torture succeeds at getting quick and WRONG information, making it an actual waste of precious time should an urgent threat arise.

Such time wasted torturing - as opposed to ACTUALLY quick and effective methods of information - could very well cause that theoretical bomb to go off unchecked, because the interrogators decided to play sadistic rather than actually working on the problem.

It also has a high likelihood of sending precious agents and wasting precious dollars on wild goose chases.

They are also aware that it tends to create terrorists rather than destroy them - including innocent people that were, basically, tortured INTO terrorism.

(Nake!)

They should be aware that it gives any possible future NATIONAL enemies of America, such as North Korea, the perfect excuse to torture American soldiers.

And they are obviously aware that it involves innocent people as well, which might generate the same lack of care towards the innocent in other countries that might go to war against the US someday.

(Sakebe!)

As such, we see that torture is a method of interrogation that doesn't help at all and will get the victim to say whatever they think will make it stop (QED John McCain's listing of baseball players for army names).

So we become aware that torture, disregarding the fact that it is immoral and unacceptable, basically hurts and hinders ALL the efforts to protect the country.

(Soshite, SHINEH!)

Thus we come to the conclusion that those in favor of torture either seem not to be able to realize these facts, or seem to be fully willing to harm their country for some sadistic revenge in the form of torture.

Done.

H added to "shine" due to possible mispronounciation of the word.

Just imagine all the new terrorists that have been recruited in Israel and among the families of 9/11 victims. And Daniel Pearl's family, well I hear their hatred has really been raised.

What's that you say? There aren't any such terrorist recruits?

Oh, I forgot. Terrorists are typically recruited from among Muslims, frequently as a response to other Muslims paying the price for theisr earlier terrorist acts. My mistake :headbang:

9/11 created a lot of "terrorists". They now are attacking countries they suspect to be behind Al Quaida - even, if the rest of the world don't think so.

Before 9/11, there were much less islamic terrorists out there than now. There were some crazy idiots, and as they aren't organized like a state, you can't tell them not to crash planes in skyskrapers.

But after a senseless war in Iraq and torturing innoncent civilians, their hate and the hate of the muslim community growed.

You have to break the cricle of hate and violence. And for a state, it is easy to do so. You never can stop any kind of terrorism totally, as the terroristic cells aren't organized. But you neither can't stop other crimes totally, so it would be utopial to expect that. (Yeah, terrorism is a crime, not warfare! Or do you think 9/11 was the beginning of an invasion?) You can minimize the threat, all you need is heroic calmness!

By the way: How many people were killed by terrorists? And how many people were killed by lung cancer, car accidents or being to fat? Should we torture the management of Lucky Strike, Ford or McDonalds as well? You ignore these much higher risks - why you can't ignore the few terrorists?

the only place for torture, like that of slavery, is in the context of erotic stimulation and gratification. and that not as a tool of idiological manipulation either.

simple fact: torture does not generate reliably useful intelligece.
and thus there is really no rational justification for it.
outside of sex.
that actualy gets gratified.
to the gratification of everyone invoulved.
without idiological or other coercive manipulation other then erotic.

(and of course any real risk of death or perminant injury must be made every effort to avoid there too!)

=^^=
.../\...

If you want to get lots of false information and give your opponents lots of fuel for true propagander then it's a great tool.

These days though where warfare has moved from battlegrounds to the underground gruellia warfare where you need to win over the support of the people then torturing peoples friends and relatives might not be the best idea.

Those who make arguments based on the Geneva Conventions should have some idea of what the Conventions actually say:

*SNIP*

*****

I submit that Islamo-Nazi terrorists and others acting in a similar manner fail to qualify either as "prisoners of war" under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, or as "protected persons" under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Accordingly, such terrorists are not entitled to any of the protections enumerated in the Geneva Conventions for "prisoners of war" or for "protected persons." What they are entitled to is the application of sufficiently vigorous coercion, short of actual physical mutilation, to extract all useful information from them.

To argue otherwise is grounded in ignorance of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions at best, more likely is intellectually dishonest, and at worst constitutes a misguided, or even deliberate, attempt to protect terrorists from the consequences of their evil activities.

Sorry, but I haven't got the time to refute the incorrect assumptions you've presented here. I'd just like to note a couple of things:

1) The Geneva convention refers to combatants and non-combatants; Military personell and civilians. Under the GC a person is either one or the other. The term "Illegal combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. Therefor, it is not as clear as you would like it to be.

2) Nice pre-emptive Ad-Hominem attack you've got there.

Sorry, but I haven't got the time to refute the incorrect assumptions you've presented here. I'd just like to note a couple of things:

1) The Geneva convention refers to combatants and non-combatants; Military personell and civilians. Under the GC a person is either one or the other. The term "Illegal combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. Therefor, it is not as clear as you would like it to be.

2) Nice pre-emptive Ad-Hominem attack you've got there.

People who claim torturing people is fine really depresses me. I don't suppose anyone can convince them their views go against everything this country is supposed to stand for? How anyone could claim that suspected terrorists don't fall under any category so can be tortured at will really mystifies me. I'm sure the Convention allows torture for some people yes? Which is why Bush and his cronies are saying they can get around it? Or hey, the Geneva Convention is so vague, what exactly does torture mean anyway? But hey, I'm guess holding people who haven't been convicted of anything, torture them, and hold them indefinately without charges is now the American way. I feel so proud.

I submit that Islamo-Nazi terrorists and others acting in a similar manner fail to qualify either as "prisoners of war" under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, or as "protected persons" under the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Accordingly, such terrorists are not entitled to any of the protections enumerated in the Geneva Conventions for "prisoners of war" or for "protected persons." What they are entitled to is the application of sufficiently vigorous coercion, short of actual physical mutilation, to extract all useful information from them.

To argue otherwise is grounded in ignorance of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions at best, more likely is intellectually dishonest, and at worst constitutes a misguided, or even deliberate, attempt to protect terrorists from the consequences of their evil activities.
I suggest, with all due respect, that any ignorance of the appropriate application of the Geneva Conventions to the current POWs at Gitmo and Abu Gharib, would rest solely upon you. This would also infer that any "intellectual dishonesty" in regards to this matter would also apply to you.

To suggest that proponents of the application of the Geneva Conventions to current POWs at Gitmo and Abu Gharib or for that matter "secret" US detention centres worldwide, are in some way making a "deliberate, attempt to protect terrorists from the consequences of their evil activities", is totally absurd, especially, but not exclusively, when one considers the "legality" of the invasion of Iraq.

Intellectual dishonesty indeed.

CanuckHeaven Okay, I'm not as much of a bastard as some of my most rescent threads but it boils my blood sometimes by how vicious some people become for having a different view.
Obviously, topics such as this can be extremely volatile, especially since it involves discussion of basic human rights.

No I do not speak for the majority on declarations and the approval of torture. To be fair, I'm against torture for the most part but I would turn my head to the more mild types,there is so many different torture techniques.
To promote a "free" and "just" society, one must remove the impediments that could block that society from flourishing and/or surviving. Torture of people is one such impediment.

I wish others debated like you. I throw in the towel. You win.
The way I look at it in regards to this topic, that if I win, then we both win.

With that being said, I still do not feel that al-queda or the other terrorists should be treated under the geneva convention though. Peace :)
No matter how brutal some people may be, all people should be treated as equals by the rule of law. Both of our countries were founded on democratic principals. Deviation from those principles will erode our "free" and "just" societies.

Peace. :)

This is a lively debate going on. Is coercion necessary, in the exhumation of information, from POW's. On another note, do you believe those in Gitmo are POW's, or partisans, or what?

We must, of course, define coercion. See poll.

Only mindless, politically correct, bleeding-heart crybabies want to molly-coddle terrorists. BUT physical torture is not only morally wrong, it just plain doesn't work.

Only mindless, politically correct, bleeding-heart crybabies want to molly-coddle terrorists. BUT physical torture is not only morally wrong, it just plain doesn't work.

As long as they are given the same rights as everyone else, there will be no problem from me.

Sorry, but I haven't got the time to refute the incorrect assumptions you've presented here.

Really? And what might they be? The post consisted almost entirely of quotes from the Geneva Conventions. And the entire articles were quoted (other than the third paragraph quote from Article 2 of each Convention).

I'd just like to note a couple of things:

1) The Geneva convention refers to combatants and non-combatants; Military personell and civilians. Under the GC a person is either one or the other.


First, the Geneva Conventions (there are more than one) do not divide the world into two and only two categories as you seem to think. Nothing in any of the Geneva Conventions states or implies that if one is not a prisoner of war, then one is a protected person. Both terms are clearly defined in the respective Conventions, and I have quoted those definitions in full. If one does not meet the defintion of POW as set forth in Article 4 of the GC on POW's, then one is not a POW. If one further is not a person "taking no active part in the hostilities" as specified in Article 3 of the GC on the Protection of Civilian Persons, then one is also not a protected person.

Second, you have not demonstrated how terrorists, including Gitmo detainees, qualify as either POW's or as protected persons.

The term "Illegal combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions.

Please cite my reference to "illegal combatants."


Therefor, it is not as clear as you would like it to be.

The Conventions say what they say. And if you contend that "it's not as clear as you would like it to be," that argument works both way.


2) Nice pre-emptive Ad-Hominem attack you've got there.

Hardly. Rather, an expression of my opinion, and one based on observation. However, in view of the courteous responses my posts have received from so many on this board ;) , consider the comment withdrawn.

I suggest, with all due respect, that any ignorance of the appropriate application of the Geneva Conventions to the current POWs at Gitmo and Abu Gharib, would rest solely upon you. This would also infer that any "intellectual dishonesty" in regards to this matter would also apply to you.

I'm still waiting for anyone to demonstrate how the Gitmo/Abu Ghraib detainees qualify as either "POWs" or "protected persons" under the provisions of either of the cited Geneva Conventions. Your characterization of them as "POWs" is without foundation until shown otherwise, and you have not done so; I suggest that neither you nor anyone else can do so.

To suggest that proponents of the application of the Geneva Conventions to current POWs at Gitmo and Abu Gharib or for that matter "secret" US detention centres worldwide, are in some way making a "deliberate, attempt to protect terrorists from the consequences of their evil activities", is totally absurd, especially, but not exclusively, when one considers the "legality" of the invasion of Iraq.

:rolleyes: Oh, cry me a river about the "legality" of the invasion of Iraq. There was a UN resolution, supported almost unanimously IIRC, the resolution clearly implied the use of force to back it up, and DOZENS of nations besides the US participated, and are still participating in, the action. It was legal, it remains legal, get over it.

And btw: I gave the "deliberate attempt" option as one of three, so you still have the "ignorance" and "intellectually dishonest" options left. But again, in the interest of international amity, consider the comments withdrawn. I'll get around to editing the original post when I have time. Or not. ;)

this is war?
isn't it?
people are no more in wars,no lies to dict your conduct(s).
There are no rules in war but destroy
War is the deterent to peace,it helps valorizing peace.
Heil war,lang live to peace
Democracy bless you all
And in regard to human rights you can freely detain ,and torture ANYBODY.
Hear hear,great philosophe
THIS IS WAR :headbang:
Aye!!!!!!!!!

Another thing: I think, it's wrong to debate, if the suspected terrorists are POWs, simply because terrorism is not war.

For a war, you need at least two armies. But terrorists aren't organized in armies, so there is no "war" against terror. Most of them work in very small groups on their own, there is no giant terroristic organisation which leads attacks against the western democracies. Some of them are called "cells" of Al Quaeda, but in fact, they don't get any orders of Bin Laden.

The few terrorists organized like an army like Hamas, the Taliban or Hizbolla fight only in their own regions. They aren't a danger to the USA or Europe.

So the terrorists which are really a danger to the western hemnisphere can't be POWs, they are only suspected criminals. And they have all the rights of suspected criminals. That means no torture, a fair process, they may see a lawyer, etc.

i think you missed my point..i am not "for" torture,i am saying it should not be taken off the table.

I disagree. I think it should be taken off the table, as a matter of principle, because without our principles, what the hell good are we?

Also, my objection stands because, in the current circumstances, it was our enemies who put torture on the table.

I'm still waiting for anyone to demonstrate how the Gitmo/Abu Ghraib detainees qualify as either "POWs" or "protected persons" under the provisions of either of the cited Geneva Conventions. Your characterization of them as "POWs" is without foundation until shown otherwise, and you have not done so; I suggest that neither you nor anyone else can do so.

Not entering the legality or even the plain MORALITY merit here, because these don't concern you in the least and I'm AWARE of that:

Torture is counterproductive. It does not work, and, as I demonstrated, it HARMS your effort both to get intel and to get the war on (or in, or of, since you all are making the prepositions mix by now) terror over with.

Get over it. The only reason you want the SUSPECTS to be tortured is to satisfy a need for seeing people tortured.

"The object of torture is torture." - O'Brien, 1984, by George Orwell.

Attention, O'Briens everywhere: Your strife to turn the world into a literary work should stop on the realization that said work is a dystopia.

i was not trying to impress anyone,i have never intentionally hurt someone,and the thought of seeing even a guilty person tortured would make me vomit.
i was saying,that even i could come up with ways to make you talk,let alone people that have dehumanized themselves to the point it does not affect them,as it would most assuredly bother me.
Well, then your remarks are nothing but so much hot air. If you have not tortured anyone, and if the thought of seeing torture would make you vomit, then you cannot possibly claim to know how to "break" someone. Such remarks have no effect but actually to romanticize torture in a bizarre kind of way that I have seen many times before. I have seen in it nationalistic literature of the 19th century, in jingoist propaganda, in Cold War propaganda, and also in the play-acting of little boys. I consider it juvenile, shallow and ignorant. This subject is far too serious for such nonsense. Real people are suffering real pain right now, and real politicians are proposing to make torture part of US policy, and you come to me with "Captain America Beats the Ratzis" fantasies.

I've read other posts and threads of yours. I expected better from you.

you may be correct in thinking the torturer has trained to not think of the victim as human,but an object...but i still argue that most will capitulate and give info givin the amount of pressure applied to them.
What part of "they do not stop" didn't you get?

that is not the debate,as i understand it..it was can it be effective.
If the effect you want is to rapidly build up a massive collection of enemies with legitimate complaints against you, and to make a criminal of yourself at the same time, then yes, it can be effective.

If the effect you want is to get useful information, then, no it is not effective. It is never effective. How many CIA officers, military officers, interrogators, etc., have to tell you this before it gets through to you?

state all the studies you want,i am convinced if someone tortured me,i would at some point give it up..
the real argument is are they telling you what you want to hear(truthful or not)to get you to stop!
Oh, I see. You don't care at all whether the information given under torture is true or not.

So, you would not want it done to get information, then.

So, then, why do you want it to be done?

and i was married...so torture can be quite subtle..it aint always drilling holes in your knees with a power drill.
:rolleyes:

so now define the definition of torture?
Well, judging by your remark above, perhaps all we have to do is put them in a room with you for half an hour.

People who need to have torture defined for them are the same people who are causing this problem in the first place. It is my firm conviction that only a person who wants to hurt others asks for a set of rules about what he's not allowed to do. And it has been my (and all of our) recent experience that such people (like Bush and Alberto Gonzalez) already have in their heads a list of painful, humiliating, terrifying, and kinky things they would like to do to others.

So, you go ask Alberto Gonzalez what he thinks the president should be allowed to do prisoners, and whatever he tells you, that is the definition of torture.

i have had the pleasure of being tortured physically(handcuffed and beaten..4 broken ribs and a broken cheek bone....actually soiled myself,to the laughter of the offenders,and have had the pleasure of being tortured by my ex....more subtle...but equally painfull..lol

These remarks are pointless in this debate. I note that you got beaten up by cops once. I fail to see the relevance of that. A beating by cops is a bad thing, and it was most probably illegal, too. But, just like a shoot-on-sight order during a war, a beating does not amount to a governmental policy permitting torture of prisoners.

And the marriage joke isn't any funnier now than it was the first time you mentioned it.

Those who make arguments based on the Geneva Conventions should have some idea of what the Conventions actually say:

<snip for length>

To argue otherwise is grounded in ignorance of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions at best, more likely is intellectually dishonest, and at worst constitutes a misguided, or even deliberate, attempt to protect terrorists from the consequences of their evil activities.

All that labor of typing on your part wasted yet again. Or perhaps you dictated it and made your poor secretary type it for you. Really, NM, do you make any money as a lawyer at all?

Your pathetic attempts to find loopholes in the Geneva Conventions notwithstanding, the fact remains, they stand as an agreement on the part of signatory nations NOT TO ENGAGE IN TORTURE OF PRISONERS. Period.

The use of unspecific language in defining what constitutes a "prisoner" or a "war," etc., is obviously deliberate. This is because "traditional warfare" varies from time to time and place to place. It must be obvious to anyone who reads with the goal of comprehending (not you, of course), that the purpose in the language is to make the Conventions as broadly applicable as possible. I am surprised that an attorney would not know that unspecific language is typically used in documents for that very purpose. It must also be equally obvious to anyone with even the slightest familiarity with the concepts of national and international law, that the Geneva Conventions emphasize that they are applicable to prisoners of war in order to avoid infringing on the domestic laws of sovereign nations, i.e. to avoid the appearance of dictating domestic law.

I remind you that the domestic laws of the sovereign nation of the United States of America ban torture of prisoners. Those laws do not define what kind of prisoners may not be tortured. They ban it for all prisoners under the control of the state, and they also make it a crime if it is done by someone not working for the state.

So, no matter how you slice it, nor how thinly you split the hairs, your claims that the US government is allowed to torture prisoners are false. The Geneva Conventions do not allow torture of prisoners of war, and US law does not allow torture of anyone. End of discussion. You can squirm around it all you like, but the exact same vagueness of the language that you try to use to permit torture of prisoners, can and is also used to invalidate those claims. You cannot win this argument, and especially not using this tactic.

All that labor of typing on your part wasted yet again. Or perhaps you dictated it and made your poor secretary type it for you. Really, NM, do you make any money as a lawyer at all?

He's a LAWYER???

WOO-HOO! I'M BEATING THE CRAP OUT OF A LAWYER IN AN ARGUMENT!! :D

Wait, that lawyer is New Mittanni.

Never mind the celebration then. Carry on.

Ah, by the way, I'm not claiming to be beating you in the legality issue - Muravyets is the one doing that part. But I so far showed that you seem to be intent on having torture even when you KNOW it harms the US.

He's a LAWYER???

WOO-HOO! I'M BEATING THE CRAP OUT OF A LAWYER IN AN ARGUMENT!! :D

Wait, that lawyer is New Mittanni.

Never mind the celebration then. Carry on.

Ah, by the way, I'm not claiming to be beating you in the legality issue - Muravyets is the one doing that part. But I so far showed that you seem to be intent on having torture even when you KNOW it harms the US.

Well, so he has claimed in past threads. Of course, he has never claimed to be a good lawyer. I've worked for many lawyers. Take it from me, you don't have to understand law all that well to pass the average bar exam, judging by some of the people who've done it.

Well, so he has claimed in past threads. Of course, he has never claimed to be a good lawyer. I've worked for many lawyers. Take it from me, you don't have to understand law all that well to pass the average bar exam, judging by some of the people who've done it.

Mmm. Well, anyways. You answered me first on the thread, so, do tell: What kind of style should my next rebuttal be? Shakespeare? Maiden Masher? Riddler? :D

Those who make arguments based on the Geneva Conventions should have some idea of what the Conventions actually say:

Yet you skipped a very important article:
Art. 4.
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

Really? And what might they be? The post consisted almost entirely of quotes from the Geneva Conventions. And the entire articles were quoted (other than the third paragraph quote from Article 2 of each Convention).

It was mostly directed at your "intellectual dishonesty" rant, but since you've withdrawn it I won't mention it further.

However, it was also in regard to this:

What they are entitled to is the application of sufficiently vigorous coercion, short of actual physical mutilation, to extract all useful information from them.
They are not "entitled" to vigorous coercion. And I don't know why you're ignoring the psycological aspect.



First, the Geneva Conventions (there are more than one) do not divide the world into two and only two categories as you seem to think. Nothing in any of the Geneva Conventions states or implies that if one is not a prisoner of war, then one is a protected person. Both terms are clearly defined in the respective Conventions, and I have quoted those definitions in full. If one does not meet the defintion of POW as set forth in Article 4 of the GC on POW's, then one is not a POW. If one further is not a person "taking no active part in the hostilities" as specified in Article 3 of the GC on the Protection of Civilian Persons, then one is also not a protected person.
The system of the conventions is that they deal with combatants and non-combatants; If you're not one, then you're the other. The international Red Cross say it better then me:

The definition of protected persons in paragraph 1 is a very broad one which includes members of the armed forces -- fit for service, wounded, sick or shipwrecked -- who fall into enemy hands. The treatment which such persons are to receive is laid down in special Conventions to which the provision refers. They. must be treated as prescribed in the texts which concern them. But if, for some reason, prisoner of war status -- to take one example -- were denied to them, they would become protected persons under the present Convention.
There are certain cases about which some hesitation may be felt. We may mention, first, the case of partisans, to which Article 4, A (2) of the Third Convention refers. Members of resistance movements must fulfil certain stated conditions before they can be regarded as prisoners of war. If members of a resistance movement who have fallen in to enemy hands do not fulfil those conditions, they must be considered to be protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention. That does not mean that they cannot be punished for their acts, but the trial and sentence must take place in accordance with the provisions of Article 64 and the Articles which follow it.
Doubts may also arise concerning the case of members of the crews of the merchant navy and civil aircraft. The Third Convention lays down that they are to be prisoners of war unless they enjoy more favourable treatment under other provisions of international law. The reference here is in particular to the Eleventh Hague Convention of 1907 relative to certain restrictions on the exercise of the right of capture in maritime war. It is possible that under certain circumstances [p.51] application of the present Convention may constitute the more favourable treatment referred to above.
There is also the case of members of the armed forces of an occupied territory who, after being demobilized, are interned by the Occupying Power simply because they are ex-servicemen. The Third Convention lays down expressly that they must be accorded prisoner-of-war status, which involves a system of discipline and regulations more favourable to them.
When the civilian population rises as one man on the approach of the enemy, before the territory is occupied, and takes up arms in self-defence, persons concerned in the rising must, under Article 4, A (6), of the Third Convention, be treated as prisoners of war and not as civilians. This situation has hardly ever arisen in actual practice however.
In order to complete our survey, we should say a word about a particular class of civilians -- the diplomats themselves. Diplomatic representatives who are in enemy territory on the outbreak of war are, without any doubt, protected persons within the meaning of Article 4, but usage has created a body of customary law concerning them, which has been very generally applied. In most cases they very soon receive permission to leave the country of the Government to whom they were accredited, and pending their departure they enjoy preferential treatment. During the last World War, however, the repatriation of diplomats was in some cases delayed by long negotiations of practical difficulties, especially in the case of the war in the Far East. It must therefore be agreed that if diplomats do not enjoy more favourable treatment as a result of international customary law, they must be accorded the full benefit of the Convention's provisions.
In short, all the particular cases we have just been considering confirm a general principle which is embodied in all four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ' There is no ' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that that is a satisfactory solution -- not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.
Source (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/18e3ccde8be7e2f8c12563cd0042a50b!OpenDocument)

I agree with this assessment.


Second, you have not demonstrated how terrorists, including Gitmo detainees, qualify as either POW's or as protected persons.
See above.


Please cite my reference to "illegal combatants."
You haven't referred to it; But if not combatants, nor non-combatants, what are they?



The Conventions say what they say. And if you contend that "it's not as clear as you would like it to be," that argument works both way.
Indeed. And that's the reason for this debate. It is all unclear, vague and debatable. I still believe that my position is the correct one, however.

I'm still waiting for anyone to demonstrate how the Gitmo/Abu Ghraib detainees qualify as either "POWs" or "protected persons" under the provisions of either of the cited Geneva Conventions. Your characterization of them as "POWs" is without foundation until shown otherwise, and you have not done so; I suggest that neither you nor anyone else can do so.
See above.


:rolleyes: Oh, cry me a river about the "legality" of the invasion of Iraq. There was a UN resolution, supported almost unanimously IIRC, the resolution clearly implied the use of force to back it up, and DOZENS of nations besides the US participated, and are still participating in, the action. It was legal, it remains legal, get over it.
No, it was illegal. A clear mandate from the UNSC was required, not just an implied threat. Also, it is not the prerogative of a single member state to unilaterally enforce any UN resolution on it's own.

All that labor of typing on your part wasted yet again. Or perhaps you dictated it and made your poor secretary type it for you. Really, NM, do you make any money as a lawyer at all?

Your pathetic attempts to find loopholes in the Geneva Conventions notwithstanding, the fact remains, they stand as an agreement on the part of signatory nations NOT TO ENGAGE IN TORTURE OF PRISONERS. Period.

The use of unspecific language in defining what constitutes a "prisoner" or a "war," etc., is obviously deliberate. This is because "traditional warfare" varies from time to time and place to place. It must be obvious to anyone who reads with the goal of comprehending (not you, of course), that the purpose in the language is to make the Conventions as broadly applicable as possible. I am surprised that an attorney would not know that unspecific language is typically used in documents for that very purpose. It must also be equally obvious to anyone with even the slightest familiarity with the concepts of national and international law, that the Geneva Conventions emphasize that they are applicable to prisoners of war in order to avoid infringing on the domestic laws of sovereign nations, i.e. to avoid the appearance of dictating domestic law.

I remind you that the domestic laws of the sovereign nation of the United States of America ban torture of prisoners. Those laws do not define what kind of prisoners may not be tortured. They ban it for all prisoners under the control of the state, and they also make it a crime if it is done by someone not working for the state.

So, no matter how you slice it, nor how thinly you split the hairs, your claims that the US government is allowed to torture prisoners are false. The Geneva Conventions do not allow torture of prisoners of war, and US law does not allow torture of anyone. End of discussion. You can squirm around it all you like, but the exact same vagueness of the language that you try to use to permit torture of prisoners, can and is also used to invalidate those claims. You cannot win this argument, and especially not using this tactic.
Indeed. I might mention the United Nations Convention Against Torture (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm) which the US has ratified.

Mmm. Well, anyways. You answered me first on the thread, so, do tell: What kind of style should my next rebuttal be? Shakespeare? Maiden Masher? Riddler? :D

Oooh, I LOVE your Shakespeare! But what's Maiden Masher? Me curious.

Oooh, I LOVE your Shakespeare! But what's Maiden Masher? Me curious.

Read back on page 9 (I think) of this thread. It's a reference to a fighting game, really, but the form is there. :D

<snip>
They are not "entitled" to vigorous coercion. And I don't know why you're ignoring the psycological aspect.
Oh, come on. Can't you guess? ;)

The system of the conventions is that they deal with combatants and non-combatants; If you're not one, then you're the other. <snip>
People like New Mitanni like to pretend that it is possible for there to be people to whom law does not apply and is not meant to apply. Such arguments are obvious bullshit. What they always boil down to is that they are trying to set aside a group of people they will be allowed to keep under their entire control and abuse as they please, without fear of reprisal. They will never, ever get their way in this. Even if they get away with torturing people now, they will be punished for it in the future. All their writhing and hair-splitting cannot prevent that. The fact that they have to go through all that writhing and hair-splitting and bullshit justification goes to show that they know they are in the wrong.

<snip>
Indeed. I might mention the United Nations Convention Against Torture (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm) which the US has ratified.

Thank you. :)

Read back on page 9 (I think) of this thread. It's a reference to a fighting game, really, but the form is there. :D

Oh, is that what that was? That was fun; I practiced my Japanese accent. Yes, that's a good one, but if you were also to grace us with just a little of the bard, I'd be sooo happy.

I'd skip Riddler. It might be too advanced for the opponent.

Oh, is that what that was? That was fun; I practiced my Japanese accent. Yes, that's a good one, but if you were also to grace us with just a little of the bard, I'd be sooo happy.

I'd skip Riddler. It might be too advanced for the opponent.

You ask for the Bard, the Bard you shall have!

Friends, NSers, users, lend me your eyes.
I come to bury the Geneva Conventions, not to praise them.
The evil that laws do lives after them;
The good is oft interrèd with their dust.
So let it be with the Geneva Conventions. The noble New Mitanni
Hath told you the Geneva Conventions harmed the war on terror.
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath the Geneva Conventions answered it.
Here, under leave of New Mitanni and the rest—
For New Mitanni is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men—
Come I to speak in the Geneva Conventions' funeral.
They were the world's friend, faithful and just to it.
But New Mitanni says they were harmful,
And New Mitanni is an honorable man.
They have prevented many American captives from being tortured
And many troops from, upon seeing a civilian, kill.
Did this in the Geneva Conventions seem harmful?
When civilians or soldiers were tortured, the Geneva Conventions have wept.
Harm should be made of sterner stuff.
Yet New Mitanni says they are harmful,
And New Mitanni is an honorable man.
You all do see that disregarding the Geneva Conventions
Is useless and can harm soldiers of our own,
Whereas they protect those soldiers from torture. Is this harmful?
Yet New Mitanni says they are harmful,
And, sure, he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what New Mitanni spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love them once, not without cause.
What cause withholds you then to mourn for them?
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me.
My heart is in the coffin there with the true spirit of America,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

*Weeps*

Now come on, NM, try to tell me why you think that an action of torture that's not only morally wrong, but also ineffective, should prevail over the rule of law. Come on, now, how hard could it be to defend the indefensible?

So, no matter how you slice it, nor how thinly you split the hairs, your claims that the US government is allowed to torture prisoners are false. The Geneva Conventions do not allow torture of prisoners of war, and US law does not allow torture of anyone. End of discussion. You can squirm around it all you like, but the exact same vagueness of the language that you try to use to permit torture of prisoners, can and is also used to invalidate those claims. You cannot win this argument, and especially not using this tactic.
Well, of course you are right :D and that is why Bush is strongly lobbying (arm twisting would be more appropriate terminology) Congress to draft legislation that would support the right of the US government to torture prisoners.

Well, of course you are right :D and that is why Bush is strongly lobbying (arm twisting would be more appropriate terminology) Congress to draft legislation that would support the right of the US government to torture prisoners.

He can fellate the congressmen (and you should all thank me because, by not eating for the next 3 days due to this imagery you'll get thinner - in fact, so will I) for the legislation, it won't change neither international law nor the utter lack of effectiveness that the sadists that enjoy seeing people they don't even know for sure are terrorists suffering work so hard to hide...

I'm still waiting for anyone to demonstrate how the Gitmo/Abu Ghraib detainees qualify as either "POWs" or "protected persons" under the provisions of either of the cited Geneva Conventions. Your characterization of them as "POWs" is without foundation until shown otherwise, and you have not done so; I suggest that neither you nor anyone else can do so.
Well according to SCOTUS, the "detainees" actually do have some rights that differ from what they have been granted so far.

Justices say Bush went too far at Guantanamo (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/)

5-3 ruling says military trials would violate U.S. law, Geneva Conventions

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees........

Two years ago, the court rejected Bush’s claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this follow-up case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.
Since Bush wanted to try the "detainees" as war criminals, then it would follow that these "detainees", are in fact POWs?

:rolleyes: Oh, cry me a river about the "legality" of the invasion of Iraq. There was a UN resolution, supported almost unanimously IIRC, the resolution clearly implied the use of force to back it up, and DOZENS of nations besides the US participated, and are still participating in, the action. It was legal, it remains legal, get over it.
The US violated Resolution 1441 when she invaded Iraq, as well as violating the UN Charter. That fact alone has caused the US immeasurable grief on the International stage.

And btw: I gave the "deliberate attempt" option as one of three, so you still have the "ignorance" and "intellectually dishonest" options left. But again, in the interest of international amity, consider the comments withdrawn. I'll get around to editing the original post when I have time. Or not. ;)
Oh, a partial retraction of your unjustifiable outburst. We the receipients are truly blessed. :rolleyes:

You ask for the Bard, the Bard you shall have!

Friends, NSers, users, lend me your eyes.
I come to bury the Geneva Conventions, not to praise them.
The evil that laws do lives after them;
The good is oft interrèd with their dust.
So let it be with the Geneva Conventions. The noble New Mitanni
Hath told you the Geneva Conventions harmed the war on terror.
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath the Geneva Conventions answered it.
Here, under leave of New Mitanni and the rest—
For New Mitanni is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men—
Come I to speak in the Geneva Conventions' funeral.
They were the world's friend, faithful and just to it.
But New Mitanni says they were harmful,
And New Mitanni is an honorable man.
They have prevented many American captives from being tortured
And many troops from, upon seeing a civilian, kill.
Did this in the Geneva Conventions seem harmful?
When civilians or soldiers were tortured, the Geneva Conventions have wept.
Harm should be made of sterner stuff.
Yet New Mitanni says they are harmful,
And New Mitanni is an honorable man.
You all do see that disregarding the Geneva Conventions
Is useless and can harm soldiers of our own,
Whereas they protect those soldiers from torture. Is this harmful?
Yet New Mitanni says they are harmful,
And, sure, he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what New Mitanni spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love them once, not without cause.
What cause withholds you then to mourn for them?
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me.
My heart is in the coffin there with the true spirit of America,
And I must pause till it come back to me.

*Weeps*

Now come on, NM, try to tell me why you think that an action of torture that's not only morally wrong, but also ineffective, should prevail over the rule of law. Come on, now, how hard could it be to defend the indefensible?
The above seems to be a well concocted blend of Mark Antony and Portia. :cool:

Hmmm, Julius Ceasar and the Mechant of Venice. I am sure that Shylock is lurking somewhere within this thread, still looking for his pound of flesh?

The above seems to be a well concocted blend of Mark Antony and Portia. :cool:

Hmmm, Julius Ceasar and the Mechant of Venice. I am sure that Shylock is lurking somewhere within this thread, still looking for his pound of flesh?

Actually it's only Mark Antony.

You are right though in which there ARE some people in this thread looking for a pound of Arab flesh, preferably a pound extracted in torture.

Actually it's only Mark Antony.

You are right though in which there ARE some people in this thread looking for a pound of Arab flesh, preferably a pound extracted in torture.
I realize that it is only Mark Antony, but it reminded me so much of the "quality of mercy" speech by Portia. At any rate, well done.

I realize that it is only Mark Antony, but it reminded me so much of the "quality of mercy" speech by Portia. At any rate, well done.

I aim to please. Well, not to please EVERYONE, because I'm pretty sure New Mitanni didn't enjoy being humiliated in near unrhymed iambic pentameter... :D

i will say that everyone.../everyone has limits or breaking points....and if info can be gained..then so be it...would suck if it was my innocent self..but we did not make the rules..we play by them.

The point is, in a democracy we DO make the rules, and the bad guys don't play by them. That's what makes them bad guys.

This is a lively debate going on. Is coercion necessary, in the exhumation of information, from POW's. On another note, do you believe those in Gitmo are POW's, or partisans, or what?

We must, of course, define coercion. See poll.

I don't know, but it should have limits.

Would you mind not gravedigging, Hocolesqua? Two threads of six months or so old is pushing it a bit...

Edit: Three threads, that I've spotted. Please stop!