US breaking laws to torture

135

Comments

  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    FiveB247x wrote:
    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.
    JB811 wrote:
    It is a simple question, yes or no will do.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    mickeyrat wrote:
    What or more specifically WHO would determine , under what circumstances "enhanced interrogations" should occur? What is the standard?

    like I said, its a gray area. the standard or circumstances would be when American lives are at stake and an attack is imminent.
  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    and only the president should be allowed to give the orders, but now thanks to the ACLU we wont know if another attack is eminent.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    prfctlefts wrote:
    and only the president should be allowed to give the orders, but now thanks to the ACLU we wont know if another attack is eminent.
    "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.


    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.
  • ajedigecko
    ajedigecko \m/deplorable af \m/ Posts: 2,431
    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.
  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    ajedigecko wrote:
    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:
  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    :lol:
    Commy wrote:
    prfctlefts wrote:
    and only the president should be allowed to give the orders, but now thanks to the ACLU we wont know if another attack is eminent.
    "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.


    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.

    eney meeny miney moe catch a terrorist by the toe if he hollers Ala akba dont let him go.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    prfctlefts wrote:
    ajedigecko wrote:
    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.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    prfctlefts wrote:

    eney meeny miney moe catch a terrorist by the toe if he hollers Ala akba dont let him go.
    clever.
  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    sure is funny how some will stick up for terrorist that wouldn't hesitate to kill us but when it comes to an unborn child. screw em. what rights?
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    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.
  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    they dont belong to the geneva convention. jeez what do you not understand about that >
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    "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?

    Commy wrote:
    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.
    Commy wrote:
    I don't think you can know, so a lot of people are going to be tortured for no good reason.

    this is certainly a problem...thats why I would only support enhanced interrogations under the most extreme circumstances.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    edited May 2009
    :?
    Post edited by Commy on
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    prfctlefts wrote:
    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.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    "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?




    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.






    Commy wrote:
    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.
    the ends don't justify the means. ever.
    Commy wrote:
    I don't think you can know, so a lot of people are going to be tortured for no good reason.

    this is certainly a problem...thats why I would only support enhanced interrogations under the most extreme circumstances.
    [/quote]


    that's fine, that's your opinion.



    its still in violation of international law.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Commy wrote:
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Commy wrote:
    "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?

    no
    Commy wrote:
    what do our little scenarios have in common?

    they are both pure fiction. and happen never.

    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.
    Commy wrote:
    jack bauer lives in a fantasy land. Its not real.

    9/11 wasn't a fucking TV show.
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    edited May 2009
    jlew24asu wrote:

    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.



    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.







    Commy wrote:
    jack bauer lives in a fantasy land. Its not real.

    9/11 wasn't a fucking TV show.




    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)
    Post edited by Commy on
  • TriumphantAngel
    TriumphantAngel Posts: 1,760
    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...
  • WaveCameCrashin
    WaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    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 ? :lol: :roll:
    yeah sure. well guess what? I 'll still be alive and you'll be dead, Hope it was worth it.