"Anti-Torture Amendment"; Bush disapproves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

yes we should let these soliders die. that is final we never tortured german prisoners in the second world war when we were bing bombed. we never tortured them when we were marching forward against france and knowing were the germans were could have saved thousands of lives.

we just didn't it was totally out of the question. you accepted the fact that you just couldn't do it and you got on with it and accepted the death toll brought on by those rules and morals.

people died for that. but we didn't drop to such a level were we would torture these people. we knew what torturing them could do. it could have saved thousands of lives. but under no circumstances would we have done it. it didn't matter. it was war and people got killed. it wasn't a day out in the park playing football were we could scream "it's not fair". war was there to fight and die in. we refused to drop our morals.

america has dropped theirs. it no longer plays by the moral rules which are right and proper. rules which did not cost us that war and proved to the world who was right and who was wrong (the germans didn't torture pow's either though).

what are we fighting for in iraq if we do not have these morals? freedom? peace? the good? from what? we've replaced one regime were torture was allowed with another were torture is allowed.

what are we to try sadamma with? "mr sadamme it says here you tortured people" "yes that is true but so do the americans" "yes that's true but.......". do you let a theif try a theif? does the rapist judge the rapist? should america judge anyone's human rights record when it admits to torture?

what do we fight for if we are not ourselves moral?

---

I think the problem is that you think war is football, and that it makes sense to blow your whistle and hand out red cards. The problem here is that not only is the other side not handing out red cards, they're breaking every rule in the book. Hiding amonst civilians, delibrate targeting of civillians, hiding in mosques, and cutting off heads. That's what's going on in Iraq. The problem is that if only one side is tying its own hands with rules, that side already has one or maybe two strikes against it.

And we did fight no holds barred in WW2. This is a picture of Marines at Iwo Jima. You'll notice the flame thrower on the tank. When the Japanese came out of the burning bunkers, the marines shot them.

http://www.iwojima.com/battle/lbattln.gif
http://www.iwojima.com/battle/lbattlm.gif

Also not forgetting the air-raids

Dresden:
http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/tours/...fs/dresden.jpg

Hiroshima:
http://www.ipc.hokusei.ac.jp/~z00323...ma/Ill_ww2.jpg

So don't say that we never dis anythink that could be a war crime today. We were downright brutal in the second world war.

Humans have never been perfect, so I don't even know where to go with that. If you're waiting for a perfect judge, you'll never have another trial.

flamethrowers were common during world war 2 and not relly frowned against. they were outlawed after the war.

and while we killed civillians we never stooped to the level of torturing pow's for information.

while it would be untrue to say that the american army did not torture german pow's during world war 2 and their treatment after the war was finished. the rhine meadow camps are the obvious example. but it was not to extract information or save lives. of course that was in direct violiation of the geneva convention. but noone cared. as it seems they still don't.

at the end of this what are we to say to the iraqi people? "we freed you from a regime willing to torture you and replaced it with a regime willing yo torture you?"

Quote:

---

April 11, 1945: On the eve of his death, FDR told Morgenthau in Warm Springs, GA: "Henry, I am with you l00%" When Truman took over, he continued Morgenthau's "Carthaginian Policy" towards conquered Germany.

April 17, 1945: The Americans opened their enormous Rheinberg Camp, six miles in circumference, with no food or shelter whatsoever. As in the other big "Rhine meadow" camps, opened in mid-April, there was initially no latrines and no water. In some camps, the men were so crowded they could not lie down. Meanwhile, at Camp Kripp, near Remagen, the half-American Charles von Luttichau determines that his German comrades are receiving about 5% as much food as their captors." Complaining to the camp commander, HE SAID: ''Forget the Geneva Convention. You don't have any rights."

Late April 1945: Heinz Janssen, a survivor of the Rheinberg camp, described conditions as they were at the time. "Amputees slithered like amphibians through the mud , soaking and freezing. Naked to the skies day after day and night after flight, they lay desperate in the sand of Rheinberg or sleep exhaustedly into eternity ill their collapsing holes.''

---

This isn't the same thing. This wasn't a case of either open the camps or face an insurgent's bomb (or bayonet). The prisoners we have are safe in jails and being fed 3 meals a day. How is it possible that you can't understand the difference between this and rather harsh questioning of a known insurgent who knows where the bombs are going off? The difference is fairly obvious to me. The Rhine Camps were retribution. Abu Graib is an attempt to get intelligence to stop the insurgency from blowing up more people.

This is the moral difference. It's wrong to kill, no matter what. However it's less wrong when it's done in self defense or done to defend someone else. And the wrong of killing someone would become downright insignificant if you speak of killing a mass murderer and thus saving a million lives. It's only when you compare the action to others that the morality of an action can be determined. So the choice is still the same -- let more people die, or get the information even if it means violating Geneva. Those are the only two. There's no magical third option where we don't get the info and the insurgency drops flowers at our feet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and while we killed civillians we never stooped to the level of torturing pow's for information.

---

Right.... back then, when they tortured.... they TORTURED. One of the favored technique was to take captured soldiers, chain them down, coat them in congealed fats and other refuse, then leave them in the room with a couple of the so-called "corpse rats". It was a rare enemy (and both sides did this, FYI) that could keep from talking when the creatures started eating refuse, and their skin, all at the same time.

Compared to those WW2 days, we're complete pansy-asses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

This is the moral difference. It's wrong to kill, no matter what. However it's less wrong when it's done in self defense or done to defend someone else. And the wrong of killing someone would become downright insignificant if you speak of killing a mass murderer and thus saving a million lives. It's only when you compare the action to others that the morality of an action can be determined. So the choice is still the same -- let more people die, or get the information even if it means violating Geneva. Those are the only two. There's no magical third option where we don't get the info and the insurgency drops flowers at our feet.

---

I dont want to get to involved in this argument because it dosnt affect me personoly. my opinion is my own as is everyones. but i must question this. how can killing be less or more wrong? does killing an enemy in defence make them any less dead? killing is killing in my opinion. and i dont mean to belittle your opinion, on the contrary i respect you for your arguing what you belive in. but it is my belife that you could justify almost anything, but when it comes down to it, its either right ir wrong. and most all people can tell the difference.

violating the geneva convention and the human rights act makes us no better than any other country. why can we tell north korea they have a poor human rights record when we torture? why can we try sadamme for torturing his own people when we have just taken over that job?

both instances past and present are totally wrong when it comes down to how america treats it's prisoners. we never needed to do it before we don't need to do it now. war is were people die. we need to accept that. it should not be where you can torture a man to prevent it. there used to be rules of war. things you just can and can't do. for the sake of humanity. it seems certain countries have lost all idea of morals or humanity.

udsuna i can't find anything about the incidents you are talking about. the only torture in ww2 i can find is that from german doctors, the japanese and the rhinecamps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

udsuna i can't find anything about the incidents you are talking about. the only torture in ww2 i can find is that from german doctors, the japanese and the rhinecamps.

---

Try to find some (unnedited) WW2 soldier diaries. My source is my Great Grandfather, who was there to witness in the Italian and German theatres. That was just one example amongst many, and he says he saw stuff like it everywhere he was stationed that had captured enemies. He was a medic (allies- technically British, he enlisted with them before America entered the war), not soldier, but he was shot at just the same. Needless to say, the front-lines are a little different than the history books and video tapes. I've got plenty of stories.... an imaginative inquisitor can turn almost anything into a tool of torture.

In other words.... unless we're THERE, we don't know anything. I don't know jack, you don't know jack, not many people on this forum have the first CLUE.... I, for one, admit that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fithos

I dont want to get to involved in this argument because it dosnt affect me personoly. my opinion is my own as is everyones. but i must question this. how can killing be less or more wrong? does killing an enemy in defence make them any less dead? killing is killing in my opinion. and i dont mean to belittle your opinion, on the contrary i respect you for your arguing what you belive in. but it is my belife that you could justify almost anything, but when it comes down to it, its either right ir wrong. and most all people can tell the difference.

---

You have a choice between killing one person or killing ten. Which is worse? It's a similar decision. The choice is between torturing one person or letting ten people die. And that really is your only choice. You're not going to get any information out of these guys with just threats and normal interrogation methods. Sure, torture is wrong, but it's a "lesser of two evils" situation.

It's a frelling war people, it's not going to be pleasant. You do what you have to do to win, whether it is torturing a prisoner for information or bombing churches where the enemy is hiding. In case you haven't noticed, fighting a war halfway is stupid, and is a sure-fire way to lose. We tried it in Vietnam, and we all know how that went. If you're not willing to do unpleasant things to save lives, then you must not have any sense of morals at all. Morals is about more than just protecting your stuck up, "holier than thou" attitude.

What's more, you people are so hypocritical that it's ridiculous. You constantly argue that the entire war is wrong, that we shouldn't go in and kill people because we disagree with their beliefs. Yet you are advocating the same thing, you would rather have soldiers die than have them do something that you disagree with. "Pot, meet kettle; kettle, this is pot. Get to know each other well, because you have a lot in common." You don't want us to impose our morality on others, yet you constantly strive to impose your morality on us.

no it's not the lesser of two evils it is the greater. you take the higher moral ground. if we insist on torturing people what right do we have to be in iraq? to oust a dictator? what makes the us army any better than the republican guard now?

and actually you fought a pretty damn total war in vietnam when you bombed villages and tortured civillians.

but why would you fight a war when it just leaves one torturer in place of another?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

no it's not the lesser of two evils it is the greater. you take the higher moral ground. if we insist on torturing people what right do we have to be in iraq? to oust a dictator? what makes the us army any better than the republican guard now?

and actually you fought a pretty damn total war in vietnam when you bombed villages and tortured civillians.

but why would you fight a war when it just leaves one torturer in place of another?

---

So, sacrificing the lives of several others is your idea of the "right" thing to do. That shows just how screwed up your sense of morals is, doesn't it? Tell me, would you rather be tortured, or dead? Personally, I'd rather be tortured, especially since most of the stuff that is considered torture now days is pathetic, and doesn't even leave any permanent side effects. Give me one good reason why I should put the convenience of the enemy above the lives of my fellow Americans.

Bombing villages and torturing people alone does not make a total war scenario. The Vietnam war was one of the most poorly fought (on our part) wars in history.

Why do we hold elections when we're just going to get an idiot in office no matter who wins? Why do we bother to protect people who are just going to complain that we are evil anyway? Why do we try to spare innocents instead of target them? Why don't we just nuke the entire country of Iraq until it becomes a glowing crater? Why do we stop people from torturing prisoners for the fun of it? Why do we prosecute rapists? Why do we put murderers to death?

well you don't. america gave a minimal sentence to lindy england and america tortures prisoners.

north korea also tortures prisoners. so did iraq. so does uzbekisatn (note that america supports that regime)

we are having nation which openly tortures people decide who is right and wrong.

and it is not my view of right and wrong. it is the world's view. it was the world's view at geneca and nurmeburg and when they signed the human rights act.

and noone can answer me that one question what is better about the treatment of iraqis now under american torture and then under iraq torture? is there a good reason to merely change from one torturer to another? from one evil to the next?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and noone can answer me that one question what is better about the treatment of iraqis now under american torture and then under iraq torture? is there a good reason to merely change from one torturer to another? from one evil to the next?

---

You didn't answer any of my questions either. Consider us even. When you can answer mine, I'll consider answering yours. Until you can answer mine, there isn't really any point to answering yours.

okay then.

yes sacrficing other is the right thing to do. we went to war on the idea that we were on the moral right. people will die to keep it that way. unless you want to make this a pointless war replacing one torturer we cannoy drop to that level. the geneva convention and human rights act will not be broken no matter what the cost.

i'd rather be dead than tortured. in america now after bush helpfully changed the definition of torture to having to have been maimed by it. i would rather be dead than tortured and maimed.

"Why do we hold elections when we're just going to get an idiot in office no matter who wins? Why do we bother to protect people who are just going to complain that we are evil anyway? Why do we try to spare innocents instead of target them? Why don't we just nuke the entire country of Iraq until it becomes a glowing crater? Why do we stop people from torturing prisoners for the fun of it? Why do we prosecute rapists? Why do we put murderers to death?"

because america likes to think it has morality left.

no answer my question. why do we replace one torturer with another?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

okay then.

yes sacrficing other is the right thing to do. we went to war on the idea that we were on the moral right. people will die to keep it that way. unless you want to make this a pointless war replacing one torturer we cannoy drop to that level. the geneva convention and human rights act will not be broken no matter what the cost.

i'd rather be dead than tortured. in america now after bush helpfully changed the definition of torture to having to have been maimed by it. i would rather be dead than tortured and maimed.

"Why do we hold elections when we're just going to get an idiot in office no matter who wins? Why do we bother to protect people who are just going to complain that we are evil anyway? Why do we try to spare innocents instead of target them? Why don't we just nuke the entire country of Iraq until it becomes a glowing crater? Why do we stop people from torturing prisoners for the fun of it? Why do we prosecute rapists? Why do we put murderers to death?"

because america likes to think it has morality left.

no answer my question. why do we replace one torturer with another?

---

I disagree. It is alright to sacrifice yourself, and it is in fact noble and honorable, but you cannot force others to sacrifice for you. That is not a valid moral standpoint at all, it is pure selfishness. You cannot impose your morals upon someone else. Asking someone else to sacrifice for what you believe is right, even if they don't, is ridiculous.

The answer to your question is this: The matter is not as simple as you would like to believe. Yes, if you split things down to that level of basics, people who torture versus people who don't, you are correct, there would be no difference. But there are far more distinctions than just that, and if you cannot realize that, then you need to adopt a less narrow minded view. Yes, I believe that "torture" can be justified, especially since a lot of what is considered "torture" by the rest of the world leaves no permanent effects. Does that make me an evil person? Possibly. But does it make me as evil as someone who tortures for pleasure, who causes harm with no regard for others, or who would kill innocents? I don't think so. You are of course free to disagree, but I cannot advocate a position of standing by and letting evil continue unchecked. "Evil prevails when good men do nothing". If I have to torture or kill one man to save ten or a hundred, I will. I will feel remorse afterwards (which is more than I can say for most of my enemies), but I would do it just the same. While we may be replacing one group of torturers with another (which is a rather flawed statement, since we are not taking control of the Iraqi government), I believe that we are replacing a group that tortures and oppresses constantly with no remorse with a group that only tortures in order to save lives.

Yes, if you simplify things down to basics, it seems pointless. You could have just as easily made the argument that we are just replacing humans with more humans. Or evil people with more evil people. But I believe that there are varying degrees of evil, and that taking some unpleasant action in order to do what I feel is best for the majority of people is far less evil than sitting on my @$$ and letting people die rather than take an action which may usually be considered immoral.

Torture is fine. It s a necessary evil. If some people have too weak a stomach to deal with it, well then that's a shame for them. Of course it can be excessive and unnecessary- I'm looking at you, Abu-Ghraib- but in many cases it is a useful military tool. I have no problem with it. What is one person's pain in comparison with many? I think perhaps though, the key is subtlety. If one was to go in for overt torture, i.e. Japan WWII, well it doesn't do much for a nation's image. However, more of a covert, i.e. American present day approach, and it is used sparingly, well then it's a positive thing. However, fear is the greatest tool. The Gestapo knew this. If a person is scared enough to divulge their information prior to torture rendering it unnecessary, well then better still. Less time and money wasted via interrogation.