"Anti-Torture Amendment"; Bush disapproves

But in the case in which torture is being argued here there is a threat. And it is from a group of people. And the person being tortured either A) has connections with the group or B) is a member of the group.

If a gang threated to kill your loved ones, or one of your own, then in selfdefense killing them all would be fine by most people I know. Selfdefense CAN target a group.

And the purpose of selfdefense is to protect yourself or your own from being hurt. Thus it is preemptive action. Torture can be used as a preemptive form of selfdefense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

The US invasion was entirely legal from a UN standpoint; resolutions passed in the wake of the First Gulf War ensured that and Saddam had violated Cloud's lauded international laws countless times. The fact that neither the real violations of Saddam (Not to mention other regimes such as Zimbabwe and North Korea) are not strongly punished by the UN, and neither is the popularly percieved illegal attack by the coalition, plainly shows that the UN enjoys pretty much no power whatsoever.

Point is that there's pretty much nothing to fear from the UN for any parties. Only nations which actually take action (Legal or otherwise) are the ones who are getting things done.

---

That is where you are wrong because the those violations never had an outline in them as to the concequences. Since there is no concequence stated there must be a resolution of what an acceptable punishment is. War was not an acceptable punishment. I don't care if it got voted down for corrupt reasons. That just goes to show that UN has yet another problem.

The president just couldn't declare war on Afganistan after 9-11. He still had to get congress approval first(which he did immediatly). Unless these things are outlined a head of time it isn't legal...more or less in reference to declaring war on another country in the international community...and such.

It isn't the UN that is fear but it is the UN that should be feared. If they pass something and it isn't followed then everyone needs to enforce some sort of penalty. If not then why have the UN at all?

Quote:

---

But in the case in which torture is being argued here there is a threat. And it is from a group of people. And the person being tortured either A) has connections with the group or B) is a member of the group.

If a gang threated to kill your loved ones, or one of your own, then in selfdefense killing them all would be fine by most people I know. Selfdefense CAN target a group.

And the purpose of selfdefense is to protect yourself or your own from being hurt. Thus it is preemptive action. Torture can be used as a preemptive form of selfdefense.

---

I didn't say that self-defense didn't apply to a group. I'm saying - something which you either refuse to see or are continually avoiding - that to defend yourself from someone does not mean you can hurt someone else.

If members of a certain group attack you, you have no self-defense justification to attack someone else that happens to be in the same group. That would be ruled in every rational court across the world.

Self-defense is not justification for torture.

Quote:

---

That is where you are wrong because the those violations never had an outline in them as to the concequences. Since there is no concequence stated there must be a resolution of what an acceptable punishment is. War was not an acceptable punishment. I don't care if it got voted down for corrupt reasons. That just goes to show that UN has yet another problem.

The president just couldn't declare war on Afganistan after 9-11. He still had to get congress approval first(which he did immediatly). Unless these things are outlined a head of time it isn't legal...more or less in reference to declaring war on another country in the international community...and such.

---

Congress gave Bush the power to invade Iraq and whatever-the-hell else he wanted. Something I very strongly disagree with, but whatyagonna do.

Quote:

---

It isn't the UN that is fear but it is the UN that should be feared. If they pass something and it isn't followed then everyone needs to enforce some sort of penalty. If not then why have the UN at all?

---

Exactly. The UN wasn't going to do anything about Iraq. Not that I'm saying we should've invaded - I disagree, in fact, with the invasion of Iraq. But the UN has a history of incompetence when it comes to dealing with force. It does great with resolutions on how much we should stop industry, but doesn't do well when it needs to make a quick decision concerning a war/the possibility of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Congress gave Bush the power to invade Iraq and whatever-the-hell else he wanted. Something I very strongly disagree with, but whatyagonna do.

---

I wasn't saying that. I was trying to draw some sort of half-assed connection between getting resolution from a government force before being able to act. Such as Bush having to get it from congress(both times) and the UN(both times but only suceeded once). I think I just used afgan because it was a clean legal war from an internation law perspective. My bad :)

I have been in a few fights where thier are multiple people. You don't get to play that discrimination game. In that sort of field anyone on the opposite side is guilty if they show ANYTHING that can be interpreted as a threat. You do not have time to sit there and debate. In fact in town many times in a fight that people who don't want involved are present either stand perfectly still or lay down. Any action interpretable as a threat will get you nailed. You don't get the time to guess and play.

I treat this the same way. The people who are attacking our troops. They are on the other side. And are performing an action that can be a threat in most instances. Correct? If I recall right it was mentioned in this thread that that is where the torture victims are ideally caught. Thus they have already shown that they are part of the group.. and part of the threat. Now you have reason to suspect another attack. And reason to suspect that this guy may know of the attack. So why not ask? It may prevent future harm of your own. And the only one involved is already shown to be a threat/danger. Your goal is to disarm it. That means that torture can be used as selfdefense.

No you don't go and grab a random innocent to torture. But if you catch a battlefield participant that has a good chance of knowing when that next attack will happen, well that is when torture may be a viable option.

Quote:

---

Law. The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by protect

pro·tect Audio pronunciation of "protect" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-tkt)
tr.v. pro·tect·ed, pro·tect·ing, pro·tects

1. To keep from being damaged, attacked, stolen, or injured; guard.

---

Until peace is declared the threat of violence is there. Protect is to prevent. Thus selfdefense is a preemptive action. Now torture is a form of preventive action used on a person to protect against future threats. That right there qualifies it in many ways to be selfdefense of a form.

The reasonable bit is the only bit that is questionable. Some would definately say that torture is an unreasonable act. However, others can reason it. That I will stay away from, since I feel that the act of torture is distastful to say the lest.


Keep in mind I am not argueing morals or right and wrong here. I am argueing straight words. The dictionary from all the words I have looked up involved has nothing saying that torture under the right cirucumstances can not be a form of selfdefense. And since the dictionary defines our language I can not find a way to argue that it isn't, unless I have woefully overlooked a word and its meaning. The worst part about the definition is that it has the word "reasonably" in it. Which is a dang pain. Reasonably is not easily defined or bound.



EDIT-
While I am on words we are all on the same base when understanding torture, right? Torture is another of those words that can vary from individual to individual due to the way it is defined.

Just in case-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by torture

tor·ture Audio pronunciation of "torture" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrchr)
n.

1.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

---

As I said I don't personally think of it as being 'right' persay, however, once again I see nothing banning it from the realm of being a possible tool of selfdefense.

The UN is only as strong as the countries contained in it. The issue with rwanda was not the fault of the un. the un does not really exist. it is an empty vessel full of individual countries. the security council failed in it's duty. a lack of action by the us, britain, france and germany is why we let rwanda happen. this would have happened with or without the un.

and it can't act against america as being the world's only super power (and with a veto on the UN) noone really wants to take action. really i wish they would.

when america stood up in front of the un and said iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism the UN did act. it sent hans blix and the nuclear watch team to go have a look. after a few months they found nothing. so america invaded. seemed a bit silly at the time. still does. they also found nothing. the un acted. america just wasn't happy that it never got a reason to fight so fought anyway.

self defence is a legally defined right. however torture is something that cannoy happen. you can shoot him if he is going to shoot you. you can stab him, beat him over the head with a baseball bat as long as he is trying to harm you. once he is in custody he isn't capable of much. and you cannot torture him. under any circumstances. self defence or not you just cannot do it.

"No you don't go and grab a random innocent to torture. But if you catch a battlefield participant that has a good chance of knowing when that next attack will happen, well that is when torture may be a viable option." tell that to the folks in guantanamo arrested in pakistan.

"That means that torture can be used as selfdefense." the answer to this is simply no. it may not be used. using it can and should result in the highest punishments.

you accept the concequences of fighting a clean war.

"As I said I don't personally think of it as being 'right' persay, however, once again I see nothing banning it from the realm of being a possible tool of selfdefense." there is something. the geneva convention. and human morality. the first can led to life imprisonment or death (do international courts still do the death penalty?). and it should be enforced.

the american army just lacks the second.

at the end of the day torture doesn't work. an example. the french war in algiers.

the french used very harsh methods of torture leading up to the battle of algiers. they got a lot of reportedly good intellligence (it is very debatable) and they won the battle. but after the victory the algerian people were very unhappy with the french. and got even more angry than they were before and by being extremely vicious after this through sheer anger they through the french out. they killed many french in the process.

the same can be seen in iraq after the abu gahrib photos came out. bombings went up. people weren't very happy really. it kills more than it saves.

and for the ticking bomb scenario it takes too long.

soldiers in war perform 3 main duties. they should abide by the rules of war. they should fight, kill and follow orders, and they must be prepared to die.

that is all that is required. and if the first rule leads to the third rule then so be it. the rule of law is there. stated plainly and simply.

not in self defence. not in pre-emption (nothing should be committed in pre-emption). not in any circumstances.

no justifiable reason.

Quote:

---

no justifiable reason.

---

You keep on saying that. Do you still go by your saying that 'international law is more important than people's lives', like you said before? Because that's the heart of things, the reason I'm debating this.

Also, let go of what the International Law says for a second... wouldn't YOU want your own life saved, or your family's, friends, etc, even if means torturing a terrorist? I certainly hope you prefer your life and the lives of those close to you, over the suffering of some arsehole.

law is not just a reflection of order. it is a reflection of morals. it is not just about what the law says. but what it means. why it is written and why it is right.

i would rather die a martyr's death than life the live of a cowardly torturer.

that isn't due to the geneva convention of nuremburg principles. it is a question of morality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

law is not just a reflection of order. it is a reflection of order. it is not just about what the law says. but what it means. why it is written and why it is right.

i would rather die a martyr's death than life the live of a cowardly torturer.

that isn't due to the geneva convention of nuremburg principles. it is a question of morality.

---

Fine then, but as we keep saying, that's your ethics. I'm not going to tell someone else to die because of Geneva. Geneva is nice and all, but in the case of the insurgents in Iraq, the practical meaning is "Die because of Geneva. Because I'd rather see you dead than be in violation of Geneva." To my mind, this is a human sacrifice to the Geneva laws. However noble they might be, it's immoral and frankly evil to sacrifice people to a piece of paper.

That's all well and good, if that's what you want, but you aren't there. Maybe I prefer the honorable death of a samurai. So what? I haven't joined the millitary, and I don't get to tell the American soldiers that I'd prefer that they live and die by Bushido. If I was fighting alongside them, I might. That would make sense, and I suppose that quite a few would choose that.

As it stands, I prefer doing what is necessary to save lives, both the American soldiers and the Iraqis trying to rebuild their lives. I'm sure that the US government is working to get to the point where they can abide by Geneva without turning Iraq into a bigger war zone than it is. The place seems pretty near a civil war, and unless the insurgency is stopped soon, there may well be a civil war. How many deaths will that cause?

And I'm still waiting on the intelligence expert that says torture doesn't work, or a general that says it isn't neccessary. All I'm seeing is the rantings of cloud #9. Do some research.

"I haven't joined the millitary, and I don't get to tell the American soldiers that I'd prefer that they live and die by Bushido."

the difference here is that we do. severe breaks of the geneva code can result in execution. like any other law breaking it has it's concequences.

and it is not my ethics it is the rule of law. like murder is illegal. i don't care who thinks it's ethical. you will be jailed for it. and the end of the day only one piece of paper matters and that is the law. it decides if you are free or in captivity, if you are alive or dead. geneva has made it's decision on torturers.

and yes you let these people die. then you have a reason to fight. torturing people makes you no better than your enemy. we cannot right now stand up and say "look how evil these people are" because compared to us they are not. and iraqi children see this and think "these americans are bad" and decide to blow themselves up at a checkpoint.

torture just perpetuates the insurgency. it gives these people to fight for. it's not just an occupation they are fighting against. they are fighting a country which refuses human rights. to them every dead american soldier is one less war criminal.

it causes a back lash. it just creates more death. abu garhib and the war in algeria make that clear.

In burma the british troops used the hearts and minds tactic. and it worked. it seem america is using the shackles and thumbscrews tactic. and it's failing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

self defence is a legally defined right. however torture is something that cannoy happen. you can shoot him if he is going to shoot you. you can stab him, beat him over the head with a baseball bat as long as he is trying to harm you. once he is in custody he isn't capable of much. and you cannot torture him. under any circumstances. self defence or not you just cannot do it.

---

And if the guy you defended yourself against was part of a gang who was out to get you and your familiy? You wouldn't torture him to see what kind of danger your father, your sister, your wife, and your children were in?

no i'm not a vigilante.

and as for a quote on inetlligence experts. they seem to be unwilling to disclose too much. probably because of the nature of their job. there is little in the net either against or for from them. the only thing i could find was that one spoke at an amnesty international conference last month. if i can find a transcript i will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the difference here is that we do. severe breaks of the geneva code can result in execution. like any other law breaking it has it's concequences.

and it is not my ethics it is the rule of law. like murder is illegal. i don't care who thinks it's ethical. you will be jailed for it. and the end of the day only one piece of paper matters and that is the law. it decides if you are free or in captivity, if you are alive or dead. geneva has made it's decision on torturers.

---

WRONG! At the end of the day the one thing that matters is who will enforce the law. With out someone to enforce it that piece of paper or concept is useless. Until someone is willing to enforce some sort of penalty the law might as well not exist.

Also the law does not decide if you are free or in capivity or alive or dead. That is the decision of a jury and the judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

no i'm not a vigilante.

---

Sucks for your loved ones, I guess. And anyone else who you ask to die for your beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shun

"No you don't go and grab a random innocent to torture. But if you catch a battlefield participant that has a good chance of knowing when that next attack will happen, well that is when torture may be a viable option."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cloud

tell that to the folks in guantanamo arrested in pakistan.

---

you do realize that I was inferring to the 'right' way to use it, do you not?

I will not argue if it is wrong if you just grab random people, because I am sure all(or most of all of us) would aggree that it is wrong.


And cloud I have yet to see you point out HOW torture can not be used as a tool in the process of selfdefense. The definitions do not deny it in anyway I can see. Recall in whether or not it can or can't be used in selfdefense, we are not arguing right or wrong. Just whether or not torture can fall under one of the possible tools of the word selfdefense. And I still have yet to see that.

Also bear in mind that any form of selfdefense is almost always pre-emptive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

pre·emp·tive or pre-emp·tive Audio pronunciation of "pre-emptive" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-mptv)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of preemption.
2. Having or granted by the right of preemption.
3.
1. Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent: a preemptive nuclear attack.
2. Undertaken or initiated to deter or prevent an anticipated, usually unpleasant situation or occurrence: The two companies organized a preemptive alliance against a possible takeover by another firm.
4. Having or marked by the power to preempt or take precedence: a preemptive business offer; preemptive authority.
5. Games. Relating to or being a bid in bridge at a high level that is intended to interfere with the opponents' bidding.

---

hmm... Selfdefense when someone tries to kill you is to kill or disable them before they succeed, correct? That means you pre-emptively sturck BEFORE they killed you. Quite obvious to me that selfdefense is a pre-emptive action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cloud

at the end of the day torture doesn't work. an example. the french war in algiers.

the french used very harsh methods of torture leading up to the battle of algiers. they got a lot of reportedly good intellligence (it is very debatable) and they won the battle. but after the victory the algerian people were very unhappy with the french. and got even more angry than they were before and by being extremely vicious after this through sheer anger they through the french out. they killed many french in the process.

---

Doesn't the part in bold say that it was at least possible that it was successful? Now that that is out. I will say this, yes it doesn't make you many freinds. However, if we were able to make freinds(at that time) with them we likely wouldn't be at war to begin with.



And ed does raise a very good point. Laws are useless if no one enforces them.

also cloud it is was already mentioned why you will not find much info either way on it. Due to the fact that they do not want our enemies to know how effective it is(if at all). this way they may risk an attack if they suspect we do have someone captured.

Also cloud there are degrees of torture. I may twist the guys arm a bit if I believe my family is in immediate danger. And I would threaten him. But I probably wouldn't use any of the nasty forms of torture. Oh yes, and please remember being vigilante isn't neccesarily a bad thing, though it does carry a bad connotation. Vigilante is anyone who takes law enforcement into thier own hands. Judges and cops to an extent can be considered vigilante. Anyone who aides someone in danger by kiling a murder who is going to kill another(at the moment) is a vigilante, etc.