but according to pictures from Abu ghraib, yes it included Iraqi's.
and the people (US Soldiers) in those pictures are in jail now.
not the guys who gave the orders.
i heard a bone-chillin' interview with a former brigadier-general who was in charge of detention centres - she said abu ghraib was always supposed to be temporary and that it was until rumsfeld showed up that the torture started ... they had private contractors do a lot of the work ... she says those people in the pictures were only doing what they were told and approved ... the so called chain of command went right up to the very top and those fockers are the ones that really need to goto jail ...
This is an irrelevant question because there's never, ever been a scenario baring movies and tv where such an encounter was before us.
And just to prove my point, if that's the rationale you want to employ, perhaps you should ask this question to most of the Bush administration who completely ignored dozens of high-level intellegence warnings in the months before 9-11. We had the outlined information that a large attack was coming and did nothing to try to stop it or allievate it. That's 100% fact and there's no arguement about it. So perhaps you should put your own scenario in question to reality and actual practice compared some illusionary idea of how we'll get some last minute savior to stop an attack via torture or similar.
So would you two rather your entire family be killed than have some al-qaeda dirtbag getting
waterboarded so we could have the information to save your friends and family?
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
So would you two rather your entire family be killed than have some al-qaeda dirtbag getting waterboarded so we could have the information to save your friends and family?
one can make hypotheticals to suit an agenda - this question is neither grounded in any reality nor meant to address the issue at hand ...
i could make up a bunch of hypothetical situations that involve the lives of your friends and family and you too will think it's ridiculous ...
A simple question which isn't realistic and making simplicity over a complex situation. It doesn't warrant an answer because both the question and any response are in fantasy, not reality.
Torture is wrong under all circumstances and if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself if you'd think it'd be ok for enemies to torture American solidiers?
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
there wasn't any orders given. the soldiers acted independently and were punished accordingly. although I think most should have received harsher punishments.
i don't think so.
i've seen interviews with everyone involved, except the main douchebag, he's not allowed to give interviews these days.
without exception they had the same story regarding those crimes. they said he one day started acting very specifically regarding the prisoners, taking their cloths off, stacking them, beating them, putting dogs on them...like he had a plan all along, like he was following orders.
maybe he just one day decided to be a sadistic douche bag i don't know, but it sounded to me that orders orders were given, that Granger was acting on instructions. but we can't know that, because the one guy that received those orders is not allowed to talk.
I'm not defending Abu Graib at all. I will probably agree with anything you say regarding this jail.
I can understand enhanced interrogations under very specific circumstances. THATS ALL.
there wasn't any orders given. the soldiers acted independently and were punished accordingly. although I think most should have received harsher punishments.
i don't think so.
i've seen interviews with everyone involved, except the main douchebag, he's not allowed to give interviews these days.
without exception they had the same story regarding those crimes. they said he one day started acting very specifically regarding the prisoners, taking their cloths off, stacking them, beating them, putting dogs on them...like he had a plan all along, like he was following orders.
maybe he just one day decided to be a sadistic douche bag i don't know, but it sounded to me that orders orders were given, that Granger was acting on instructions. but we can't know that, because the one guy that received those orders is not allowed to talk.
I'm not defending Abu Graib at all. I will probably agree with anything you say regarding this jail.
I can understand enhanced interrogations under very specific circumstances. THATS ALL.
What or more specifically WHO would determine , under what circumstances "enhanced interrogations" should occur? What is the standard?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This is an irrelevant question because there's never, ever been a scenario baring movies and tv where such an encounter was before us.
And just to prove my point, if that's the rationale you want to employ, perhaps you should ask this question to most of the Bush administration who completely ignored dozens of high-level intellegence warnings in the months before 9-11. We had the outlined information that a large attack was coming and did nothing to try to stop it or allievate it. That's 100% fact and there's no arguement about it. So perhaps you should put your own scenario in question to reality and actual practice compared some illusionary idea of how we'll get some last minute savior to stop an attack via torture or similar.
So would you two rather your entire family be killed than have some al-qaeda dirtbag getting
waterboarded so we could have the information to save your friends and family?
It's not Irrelevant b/c it did happen with khalid sheikh mohamed we got valuable Intel that did stop further attacks and broke up cells. and you can go back all the way to the Clinton administration as far as ignoring Intel. There were guys already here learning to fly airplanes 2 years before 911 even happened.
A simple question which isn't realistic and making simplicity over a complex situation. It doesn't warrant an answer because both the question and any response are in fantasy, not reality. :roll: Say hello to Toto and Dorthy for me ok cos the only one living in a fantasy is you. With all due respect
Torture is wrong under all circumstances and if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself if you'd think it'd be ok for enemies to torture American solidiers you really think they are gonna give a shit weather we water bort or not ? You really need t o think about that. Look what happened to Daniel Pearl and he was just a reporter.
not sure where i read this and i am far too lazy to "google" it..............geneva convention rules only apply to a recognized military force with a recognizable insignia.
from my understanding, the enemies, terrorists, whatever you want to label them....do not abide by the rules.
again.........i may be off here, but if i remember correctly, that is what i learned.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
not sure where i read this and i am far too lazy to "google" it..............geneva convention rules only apply to a recognized military force with a recognizable insignia.
from my understanding, the enemies, terrorists, whatever you want to label them....do not abide by the rules.
again.........i may be off here, but if i remember correctly, that is what i learned.
not sure where i read this and i am far too lazy to "google" it..............geneva convention rules only apply to a recognized military force with a recognizable insignia.
from my understanding, the enemies, terrorists, whatever you want to label them....do not abide by the rules.
again.........i may be off here, but if i remember correctly, that is what i learned.
you are correct sir :geek:
anyone have a link to any of this?
it would make about 150,000 mercenaries in Iraq fair game to be tortured.
do we really want that?
besides, the US has signed agreements saying it will not torture prisoners of war.
This is a war on terror yeah? and these are prisoners from that war, correct? which would make them them-POW's.
2+2
When the US tortures its detainees, pow's, enemy combatants, terrorists, bad guys.....it is in violation of international law, which is very clear regarding this.
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions."[1]
not "a person without a proper uniform and insignia".
A person, ANY person.
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Or the European Convention on Human Rights. It included the provision for a court to interpret the treaty, and Article 3 "Prohibition of torture"
Or the Inter-American Convention
""For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.
The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.
it doesn't matter how they are dressed, or what their insignia looks like.
Torture is torture, illegal under international law.
"I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life." - Craig Murray
I agree with this guy. don't torture to save my life., i am against it, for any reason.
I 100% DISAGREE. let me give you a different example. lets say guy X knows where your mother is being held captive. guy X tells you she is being gang raped by a group of men. when they are done, say in a few days, they will beat her to dead with metal pipes. the police have him in a room and only you can authorize enhanced interrogations, such as making him stand in uncomfortable positions, being exposed to cold, not letting him sleep.
again, and this is like the 5th time i've asked this question of people supporting torture..
How do you know which guys to torture? how can you know which guys have valuable intel?
again, according to memos, 3 people were waterboarded. Kalid Sheik Mohammad being one of them. He ADMITTED to planning 9/11. and back in 2002 when he was captured, it was unknown if more attacks where planned. he qualifies.
they dont belong to the geneva convention. jeez what do you not understand about that >
how about the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT)?
The US agreed to that one.
ignore the Geneva conventions, since they happen to be so inconvenient, but you can't ignore them all. I listed 4 or 5 international agreements the US is a part of regarding torture and its illegality.
"I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life." - Craig Murray
I agree with this guy. don't torture to save my life., i am against it, for any reason.
I 100% DISAGREE. let me give you a different example. lets say guy X knows where your mother is being held captive. guy X tells you she is being gang raped by a group of men. when they are done, say in a few days, they will beat her to dead with metal pipes. the police have him in a room and only you can authorize enhanced interrogations, such as making him stand in uncomfortable positions, being exposed to cold, not letting him sleep.
would you authorize it?
i have another one.
lets say a virus is in Iraq. and its spreading. and it will kill the world. so the only option is to nuke Iraq. should we do it?
again, and this is like the 5th time i've asked this question of people supporting torture..
How do you know which guys to torture? how can you know which guys have valuable intel?
again, according to memos, 3 people were waterboarded. Kalid Sheik Mohammad being one of them. He ADMITTED to planning 9/11. and back in 2002 when he was captured, it was unknown if more attacks where planned. he qualifies.
"I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life." - Craig Murray
I agree with this guy. don't torture to save my life., i am against it, for any reason.
I 100% DISAGREE. let me give you a different example. lets say guy X knows where your mother is being held captive. guy X tells you she is being gang raped by a group of men. when they are done, say in a few days, they will beat her to dead with metal pipes. the police have him in a room and only you can authorize enhanced interrogations, such as making him stand in uncomfortable positions, being exposed to cold, not letting him sleep.
would you authorize it?
i have another one.
lets say a virus is in Iraq. and its spreading. and it will kill the world. so the only option is to nuke Iraq. should we do it?
there isn't some guy in captivity with no fingernails telling us about the next 9/11. its fantasy.
and so what if there was? say some guy provided intel, it doesn't excuse how the intel was gathered.
you don't uphold the law only when its convenient.
sometimes there is a price to pay for a lawful society with rights. and yes. POW's have rights.
should we have NO privacy in the US? that could potentially stop thousands of murders a year, if we had a cameras in every room of every house in the US. or how about no free speech. maybe we could shut down the neo-nazi's right?
or how about let them take our guns? yeah? they kill people right? or people with guns kill people, or whatever the saying. no guns no shootings.
how about we give police more power to search our homes and persons? and while we're at it lets get rid of police brutality laws. some gang member might know where the next drive by is coming, right?
fuck it, lets concede all of our rights to them, they could save us all from any crime ever committed anywhere.
Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither. (Franklin paraphrased)
first the put away the terrorists
then the enemy combatants
then the criminals at home
funny there was no one left to notice...when they came for us.
I feel that strongly about it, that i'd still rather die in an attack than condone a government that tortures. If i wanted that, i could've just moved to Iraq right? Oh wait, isn't that one of the reasons why we killed Saddam and invaded Iraq? Isn't that what Bush, Cheney and the gurus told us back then? They kept shoving down our throats, the horror of Saddam's torture chambers and "rape rooms" as a reason to invade. The hypocrisy is sickening.
The reason that people support torture is because they are afraid and also because they seek revenge. Is it not?
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind...
I feel that strongly about it, that i'd still rather die in an attack than condone a government that tortures. If i wanted that, i could've just moved to Iraq right? Oh wait, isn't that one of the reasons why we killed Saddam and invaded Iraq? Isn't that what Bush, Cheney and the gurus told us back then? They kept shoving down our throats, the horror of Saddam's torture chambers and "rape rooms" as a reason to invade. The hypocrisy is sickening.
The reason that people support torture is because they are afraid and also because they seek revenge. Is it not?
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind...
you would rather die in an attack then a terrorist be water borted to save you and your family ? :roll:
yeah sure. well guess what? I 'll still be alive and you'll be dead, Hope it was worth it.
Comments
i heard a bone-chillin' interview with a former brigadier-general who was in charge of detention centres - she said abu ghraib was always supposed to be temporary and that it was until rumsfeld showed up that the torture started ... they had private contractors do a lot of the work ... she says those people in the pictures were only doing what they were told and approved ... the so called chain of command went right up to the very top and those fockers are the ones that really need to goto jail ...
And just to prove my point, if that's the rationale you want to employ, perhaps you should ask this question to most of the Bush administration who completely ignored dozens of high-level intellegence warnings in the months before 9-11. We had the outlined information that a large attack was coming and did nothing to try to stop it or allievate it. That's 100% fact and there's no arguement about it. So perhaps you should put your own scenario in question to reality and actual practice compared some illusionary idea of how we'll get some last minute savior to stop an attack via torture or similar.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
one can make hypotheticals to suit an agenda - this question is neither grounded in any reality nor meant to address the issue at hand ...
i could make up a bunch of hypothetical situations that involve the lives of your friends and family and you too will think it's ridiculous ...
Torture is wrong under all circumstances and if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself if you'd think it'd be ok for enemies to torture American solidiers?
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
you have to agree with the premise to even answer it, which few people do.
I'm not defending Abu Graib at all. I will probably agree with anything you say regarding this jail.
I can understand enhanced interrogations under very specific circumstances. THATS ALL.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It's not Irrelevant b/c it did happen with khalid sheikh mohamed we got valuable Intel that did stop further attacks and broke up cells. and you can go back all the way to the Clinton administration as far as ignoring Intel. There were guys already here learning to fly airplanes 2 years before 911 even happened.
like I said, its a gray area. the standard or circumstances would be when American lives are at stake and an attack is imminent.
I agree with this guy. don't torture to save my life., i am against it, for any reason.
again, and this is like the 5th time i've asked this question of people supporting torture..
How do you know which guys to torture? how can you know which guys have valuable intel?
I don't think you can know, so a lot of people are going to be tortured for no good reason.
from my understanding, the enemies, terrorists, whatever you want to label them....do not abide by the rules.
again.........i may be off here, but if i remember correctly, that is what i learned.
you are correct sir :geek:
eney meeny miney moe catch a terrorist by the toe if he hollers Ala akba dont let him go.
it would make about 150,000 mercenaries in Iraq fair game to be tortured.
do we really want that?
besides, the US has signed agreements saying it will not torture prisoners of war.
This is a war on terror yeah? and these are prisoners from that war, correct? which would make them them-POW's.
2+2
When the US tortures its detainees, pow's, enemy combatants, terrorists, bad guys.....it is in violation of international law, which is very clear regarding this.
not "a person without a proper uniform and insignia".
A person, ANY person.
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Or the European Convention on Human Rights. It included the provision for a court to interpret the treaty, and Article 3 "Prohibition of torture"
Or the Inter-American Convention
""For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish.
The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures, provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article.
it doesn't matter how they are dressed, or what their insignia looks like.
Torture is torture, illegal under international law.
I 100% DISAGREE. let me give you a different example. lets say guy X knows where your mother is being held captive. guy X tells you she is being gang raped by a group of men. when they are done, say in a few days, they will beat her to dead with metal pipes. the police have him in a room and only you can authorize enhanced interrogations, such as making him stand in uncomfortable positions, being exposed to cold, not letting him sleep.
would you authorize it?
again, according to memos, 3 people were waterboarded. Kalid Sheik Mohammad being one of them. He ADMITTED to planning 9/11. and back in 2002 when he was captured, it was unknown if more attacks where planned. he qualifies.
this is certainly a problem...thats why I would only support enhanced interrogations under the most extreme circumstances.
The US agreed to that one.
ignore the Geneva conventions, since they happen to be so inconvenient, but you can't ignore them all. I listed 4 or 5 international agreements the US is a part of regarding torture and its illegality.
i have another one.
lets say a virus is in Iraq. and its spreading. and it will kill the world. so the only option is to nuke Iraq. should we do it?
what do our little scenarios have in common?
they are both pure fiction. and happen never.
jack bauer lives in a fantasy land. Its not real.
the ends don't justify the means. ever.
[/quote]
that's fine, that's your opinion.
its still in violation of international law.
no
nice fucking dodge. and it would happen. just substitute your mother being kidnapped to your mother working in a highrise that is targeted for attack.
9/11 wasn't a fucking TV show.
it happens almost never.
another loaded question.
either i support torture or i hate my mom.
no thanks.
I am against torture ALL the time for ANY reason.
"I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life." - Craig Murray
applies to me as well.
its not gonna happen.
there isn't some guy in captivity with no fingernails telling us about the next 9/11. its fantasy.
and so what if there was? say some guy provided intel, it doesn't excuse how the intel was gathered.
you don't uphold the law only when its convenient.
sometimes there is a price to pay for a lawful society with rights. and yes. POW's have rights.
should we have NO privacy in the US? that could potentially stop thousands of murders a year, if we had a cameras in every room of every house in the US. or how about no free speech. maybe we could shut down the neo-nazi's right?
or how about let them take our guns? yeah? they kill people right? or people with guns kill people, or whatever the saying. no guns no shootings.
how about we give police more power to search our homes and persons? and while we're at it lets get rid of police brutality laws. some gang member might know where the next drive by is coming, right?
fuck it, lets concede all of our rights to them, they could save us all from any crime ever committed anywhere.
Those who would trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither. (Franklin paraphrased)
first the put away the terrorists
then the enemy combatants
then the criminals at home
funny there was no one left to notice...when they came for us.
(paraphrased NOFX, paraphrased from someone else)
The reason that people support torture is because they are afraid and also because they seek revenge. Is it not?
An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind...
you would rather die in an attack then a terrorist be water borted to save you and your family ?
yeah sure. well guess what? I 'll still be alive and you'll be dead, Hope it was worth it.