"Anti-Torture Amendment"; Bush disapproves

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_101005I.shtml

Quote:

---

Remove All Torturers from Power
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 10 October 2005

The Bush administration and those who support the Iraq war frequently justify it by saying that Saddam Hussein tortured his people. They say that Iraq is better off without him. I agree that Saddam needed to go, but with the reports from Abu Graib and other US run prisons it is clear that the Iraqi people are still being tortured.

Last week the Senate voted 90-9 on an amendment requiring humane treatment of detainees in US custody. The nine Senators who voted against this amendment need their power stripped as well. They are Senators Allard (CO), Bond (MO), Coburn (OK), Cochran (MS), Cornyn (TX), Inhofe (OK), Roberts (KS), Sessions (AL), and Stevens (AK).

Now we hear that George W. Bush is threatening to veto the defense bill if this amendment is still attached. So is that the noble cause our soldiers are dying for? The right to torture Iraqis?

We also hear that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are twisting arms in the House to attempt to kill the anti-torture amendment. Where is the outrage? Why aren't all Americans demanding that the McCain Amendment be signed into law?

This amendment should have passed with a unanimous consent request in both the House and the Senate. Anyone opposing it is unfit to serve the American people. They deserve to have their power stripped just like Saddam.

Text of Amendment

SA 1977. Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HAGEL, Mr. SMITH, and Ms. COLLINS) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2863, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR THE INTERROGATION OF PERSONS UNDER THE DETENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) IN GENERAL.-No person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

(b) APPLICABILITY.-Subsection (a) shall not apply to with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.


(c) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.
SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODY OR CONTROL OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

(a) In General.-No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

[Page S10909]


(b) Construction.-Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose any geographical limitation on the applicability of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under this section.


(c) Limitation on Supersedure.-The provisions of this section shall not be superseded, except by a provision of law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act which specifically repeals, modifies, or supersedes the provisions of this section.


(d) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Defined.-In this section, the term "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984.

---

Heh. Discuss.

Lovely- HOWEVER, what you don't see are the "outside amendments". Which is, essentually backroom deals where a certain senator or whatnot agrees to sign, in exchange for certain considerations to his state's (supposedly) advantage. Like, say, the senator of Texas (who owns a gas company) wants the fuel taxes lowered.

Most bills don't get through because of these stupid things- for every bill sent, you usually get at least half a dozen different "stipulations", each one as irrelevent to the bill at hand as the last. Any Republican-centric bill will see all kinds of Democrat stipulants, and vice-versa. Since no one ever sees these stipulations, we can only guess what the TRUE reason for Bush to oppose it.

Then again, that doesn't stop Bush from being the (multiple expletives deleted) that he is. But this anti-torture bill isn't something he'd have any reason to oppose. After all, we can simply give these prisoners to an ally who has no such qualms. Israel, for example. Simple loophole, and all we'd need is an american "advisor" to sit in on the torture sessions to acquire the information. The only risk is that Israel may learn something, too. Which is a minute risk- their intelligence department makes the KGB look like amatures. Anything our prisoners might reveal, Israel probably knew for years.

If the bill got 90 votes and it goes back to the senate on a revote then all they need is 67 votes out of the 100 to over ride Bush and make it law without his approval. I would like to think this wouldn't be too hard.

well bush already ammended his own laws on torture and pulled out of the international courts. this doesn't suprise me. the american president wants to be able to torture foriegn nationals.

and why would we need this law if people weren't being tortured? and really the human rights act comes before anything the american president can ever say. quite frankly he is guilty of crimes against humanity and should be treated as such.

I love how you keep saying "american" like he actually speaks for us. He didn't even win the popular vote, just the electorals. (meaning that less than half of the votes went in his favor, and he won via loopholes)

We don't need anymore freaking amendments. We don't need any freaking anti-torture amendment. We have enough conflicting rules in the system as it is. These rules already exist; we don't need them written fifteen different ways 'cause someone'll think of another way to word it so that it's okay again.

Laws are gay. Like the bad kind. We should all just live in boxes.

this is all because after bush set up guantanamo bay he realised that holidng and torturing inmates is just a wee bit illegal.

so he makes a change in the law. torture is only torture when you either maim or kill somone. by this definition chinese water torture is legal, as is sleep depravation, humiliation, pain caused by stress positions, extreme temperatures.

but the house has seen that that is possibly a bit of a crap law and so wants to change it back to not being able to torture people.

This bill is going to get overridden and Bush's approval rating is going to visit the fishes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and really the human rights act comes before anything the american president can ever say.

---

Uh, no, it doesn't. America is not subject to the mob, thanks.

Well, I've made up my mind. I'm not voting for him in the next election.

Good one Doc.

Bush is a dead ship in the water right now and don't be surprised if the GOP starts to go against Bush's agenda due to his super low approval ratings. I just say on the news that 33% approve of him while 59% disapprove.

Also when asked who you will vote for in the next election 38% answered republican while 48% answered democrat. There is still a lot of time left to turn this around and caputure the remaining 14% but things are not looking good for the GOP when all their high ranking individuals are under investigation for break all sorts of laws.

"Uh, no, it doesn't. America is not subject to the mob, thanks."

well since your country is no longer prepared to protect your human rights then you only have one other place to turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"Uh, no, it doesn't. America is not subject to the mob, thanks."

well since your country is no longer prepared to protect your human rights then you only have one other place to turn.

---

Well, when you become an American, you can vote Bush out.

I'm not a proponent of torture, but honestly, I don't think it's fair to ask a soldier to not do something that could very well save another soldier's life. I'm not in Iraq, and no matter what happens there, it's unlikely that my life will be directly effected. I'm not going to look over their shoulders while they're in an environment where not having intelligence in time means that they can't stop the truck bomb. It isn't fair to sit in judgement of the soldiers when you sit at home typing on your PC sipping a tea. War isn't a spectator sport, nor is it meant to look purty to outsiders.

Expecting a soldier to give up something that may save his buddies' lives to me is just as moral as forbidding a starving man to eat meat because you think eating meat is immoral. What that would mean in practicality is "I'd rather see you dead then see you doing something I find distastful." All well and good if you're both in the same boat, and something altogether different if after lecturing the starving man about how eating meat is evil -- even though it will save his life -- you go out and have a 5 course vegan meal self-righteously congratulating yourself for speaking out on the evils of meat eating.

I think it's immoral to ask someone else to die for my morality. I hope that I would have the courage to die rather than torture someone, but the thing about that is that only my life would be in danger because of my morality, and I would be the one to face the consequences for whichever actions I choose to take -- not me deciding for you, or for anyone else. If you'd rather die than torture, great! I hope most people feel that way. But it's a far different thing to ask a stranger to die for my morality, or yours, or Big D's, or War Angel's. That's just how I see things on the issue.

:choc2:

While I appreciate your sympathies as an American soldier myself, I've gotta disagree with you. I'm too tired right now to go into all this, but let me just tell you that in the military morals come first. I don't know an officer in the Navy or Marine Corps who would say that torturing people excessively is right, even if it could potentially save lives. Because 'potential' doesn't mean in actual reality. I've got a lot more to say about this, but I'm gonna hit the rack right now. I'll sleep on it, and have more to say in the morning. Or the afternoon, seeing as how my morning is actually pretty stacked. Peace!

And DocFrance, that was smurfing hilarious. Thank you for making my day.

And udsuna, hate to say it, but that's wrong. Bush did win the popular vote this time. It was the first election where he didn't get the popular vote. Not saying he deserved it, I woulda actually much rather had McCain run for president, as it were.

dying for morality is exactly what to do. that was the nuremburg principle.

channel 4 did a season about the american torture. in it they had a ex cia, mossad and mi5 and asked them if the ticking bomb scenario (where torturing someone had given information about an imminent threat) had ever happened. they all replied, no.

torture acheives nothing. unless of course you believe the witch hunting and spanish inquisition were valid. torture is used in a situation when guilt cannot be proved. that is normally due to lack of evidence. if there was enough evidence then it would be used and a confession would not be needed. it is based on blind guesses. look at the prisoners in guantanamo bay. in there we have a blind cripple who was according to all intelligence in pakistan (he was the taliban's ambassador). kids. another blind man (though that was admittedly done in custody).

and we are talking about an intelligence system so flawed it led to the iraq war and the refusal of entry to cat stevens and the false arrest and torture of many released.

and we are talking about a military which has soldiers such as lindy england and the ones using a website in which they trade porn for pictures of dead iraqis.

is this the system we want to use to decide who deserves torture so bad the US had to ammend it's own position on torture and leave the international court.

and i'll judge any man who tortures another. unless you want to absolve all blame for the nuremburg guilty.

Heres the thing. I can understand torturing someone if there is an imenint threat. (i.e. there is a bomb and you need to find it before it goes off.) What I don't support is torture as punishment, or without a DAMNED good reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

dying for morality is exactly what to do. that was the nuremburg principle.

channel 4 did a season about the american torture. in it they had a ex cia, mossad and mi5 and asked them if the ticking bomb scenario (where torturing someone had given information about an imminent threat) had ever happened. they all replied, no.

torture acheives nothing. unless of course you believe the witch hunting and spanish inquisition were valid. torture is used in a situation when guilt cannot be proved. that is normally due to lack of evidence. if there was enough evidence then it would be used and a confession would not be needed. it is based on blind guesses. look at the prisoners in guantanamo bay. in there we have a blind cripple who was according to all intelligence in pakistan (he was the taliban's ambassador). kids. another blind man (though that was admittedly done in custody).

and we are talking about an intelligence system so flawed it led to the iraq war and the refusal of entry to cat stevens and the false arrest and torture of many released.

and we are talking about a military which has soldiers such as lindy england and the ones using a website in which they trade porn for pictures of dead iraqis.

is this the system we want to use to decide who deserves torture so bad the US had to ammend it's own position on torture and leave the international court.

and i'll judge any man who tortures another. unless you want to absolve all blame for the nuremburg guilty.

---

I'm honestly talking more about the ticking bomb scenario of prisoners caught in Iraq who are known to be in the insurgency and thus may know of planned attacks in Iraq. We aren't getting "confessions". Most in Iraq are captured with uzis in their hand, so we don't need to get them to confess. This isn't "punishment" either, it's being used to extract information that may very well save the lives of a troop convoy of 12-20 people. And honestly, we have no idea how often it had prevented an attack, because you never hear about the bombs that don't go off.

And as I said before, it isn't so much whether I don't approve of torture, or whether you disaprove of torture, or even what the War Crimes Court thinks of torture. The question is whether you are willing to have other people die for your moral indignation. I don't think that's a moral thing to do. I could see where I'd rather die than torture, and I know that you'd be willing to die rather than torture (and would doubtless risk life and limb lest he go to his cell and not find a mint on his pillow). All of that is perfectly legitamate. But it's when you say "Die for MY beliefs, and die rather than doing something that will make ME uncomfortable" that we part company. It isn't fair to the people you are asking to die.

Quote:

---

And as I said before, it isn't so much whether I don't approve of torture, or whether you disaprove of torture, or even what the War Crimes Court thinks of torture. The question is whether you are willing to have other people die for your moral indignation.

---

No, the question is whether you're willing to sacrifice your values in order to justify harming someone else.

Cloud 9, it would be much appreciated if you stop generalizing all Americans together and refering to them as if they were cancerous slime.

In any event, I believe the bill is going to pass, so I see no reason to be morally outraged any more so than I already am with the current situation in our government. I don't necessarily think that the amendment is necessary, so long as the laws are being upheld, but it is clear that they are not in some areas. Really, it seems more symbolic than anything else.

i never have. i refer to america. which is the governmental system and politics.

and yevon. the nuremburg principle says that you die for your beliefs and morality. you disobey orders and risk death for you and whoever else to prevent immorality.

some of the men in camo x-ray have been there for 4 years now under the same conditions what are the chances they know anything about what is going on or where the next bomb is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and yevon. the nuremburg principle says that you die for your beliefs and morality. you disobey orders and risk death for you and whoever else to prevent immorality.

---

Umm, exactly. YOU die for YOUR morality. That's all I was ever saying. What I'm saying is that it isn't fair to tell someone else to die for my morality. I feel the same way about the Israeli fence around Palestine. I think it's a bad idea to fence off your minorities and treat them all as guilty. However, I live in America, not Israel, so I'll never be blown to bits by the suicide bomber that can cross the border and get on a bus with a belt of explosives. So, what I'm saying is that unless I personally am going to face the same risks as the people there, who are trying to protect themselves and their buddies/families/fellow soldiers etc., it really isn't my decision at all.

And it isn't my decision about how to question people in Iraq. Very simple reasoning. I'm not there, and if the anti-torture or Geneva or whatever else puts more soldiers or Iraqis at risk, it can't effect me unless it's a breif bit of sadness for the victims of yet another truck bomb. I'm going to be safe and secure no matter what happens. The insurgency isn't striking in America, they're in Iraq.

It's simple. MY life for MY morality. YOUR life for YOUR morality. I can't ask YOU to die for MY morality. And you can't ask that of me.

Gitmo is a bit different. I'm not convinced there is any risk from them.

morality personal. it is infinite, eternal and godless. it is unchanging.

nuremburg stated this in plain fact. the human rights act made it absolutely binding. participation in an immoral act cannot be redeemed by orders. it cannot be redeemed by anything. protecting you and your comrades does not remove the blame from war crimes.

morality does not change when you are on the front lines or at home.

it was determined 50 years ago what should be done in this world. what is right and what is wrong. genocide and torture = wrong. refusing to have any part in them = good. that was the choices handed to the world. america has decided on the first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

morality personal. it is infinite, eternal and godless. it is unchanging.

nuremburg stated this in plain fact. the human rights act made it absolutely binding. participation in an immoral act cannot be redeemed by orders. it cannot be redeemed by anything. protecting you and your comrades does not remove the blame from war crimes.

morality does not change when you are on the front lines or at home.

it was determined 50 years ago what should be done in this world. what is right and what is wrong. genocide and torture = wrong. refusing to have any part in them = good. that was the choices handed to the world. america has decided on the first.

---

Ok Murder is wrong right? I think everybody agrees to that. So if I shoot a stranger, I'm an evil person, right?

Does it change if I tell you that this stranger came into my house and pointed a gun at my kids, and said "I'm going to kill you all", does that change how you view my shooting this person? That's the thing. Yes, killing the person is still morally wrong, but it's worse, morally speaking, to allow several people to die when you can do something to prevent it.

That's a major problem for all "absolute moralities". Yes it's wrong to lie, but would it still be wrong to lie if it saves a life? If the two wrongs are in conflict, your absolute ethics never hint of which of the two evils is worse. And that's really the only time morality can influence your behavior. No one other than a psychpath would go around shooting random people for fun. This is because everyone believes that such actions are evil. But what about self-defense? What about defending other people? In those situations, there are two evils. Which do you choose?

And as far as "eternal and godless" -- give me a break. It was perfectly moral in 1491 to the average aztec to kill a human being in a religious ritual. Animal sacrifices used to be extremely common. There used to be cannibals. None of that is moral today. Our morals have evolved since humans evolved 30,000 years ago.

there is no excuse for torture. end of. the punishment in the intenational courts can be death. there is absolutely no excuse for it. you accept the concequences of not performing it.

the argument in the nuremburg trials was that these people commit genocide under fear of death by breaking orders. it was decided that it was not an excuse and death should be accepted. it is better to die than to commit these crimes. to die a martyr's death. to have no part in one of the most hideous crimes you can commit. and to accept the concequences of being right and fighting for that even in death.

and morals have not evolved. in most religions murder is wrong, same with rape, theft and other crimes. it is a common human thought that these are not to be done.

Please.... there isn't a religion I've ever heard of that hasn't condoned torture to serve it's own ends. Well, not one that's had a power base to protect. Wicca and other new-age philosophies haven't existed long enough, and certainly haven't been involved in the play that is warfare and politics.

No one has the right to judge, until they've stood in the face of it and refused. Sometimes, pragmatic behavior involves the harming of your enemies. If it serves a fuction that will improve your side's chance to survive, it's worth considering, at least. I know if someone had a gun pointed at someone I cared about (and most people I DON'T care about), and I had the choice to stop that person (killing them in the process) I'd do it. If there was a less fatal solution, I'd take it, but if there wasn't, I'd do it. Torturing of prisoners for THAT function, acceptable. Now, torturing a person for the sole purpose of your own sick amusement, that is most definately wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the argument in the nuremburg trials was that these people commit genocide under fear of death by breaking orders. it was decided that it was not an excuse and death should be accepted. it is better to die than to commit these crimes. to die a martyr's death. to have no part in one of the most hideous crimes you can commit. and to accept the concequences of being right and fighting for that even in death.

---

No American fears death by not following orders. The death would come by the truck bomb that the prisoner knows about and isn't going to tell you about short of torture. Also, it isn't one for one here. If the bomb does go off, it's usually at least ten people. So then the statement is "better ten Americans dead than 1 Iraqi tortured", correct? That isn't the same as nurmberg. Nurmberg was "shoot this unarmed Jew who isn't a threat, or i shoot you". The picture is a lot different, starting with the fact that the person is in a millitia trying to kill Americans (thus he isn't innocent, and until his capture wasn't harmless), and then the fact that unlike in Nurmberg, where the only life in danger was the torturer, (who would be shot if he refused) in this case, the victims are other soldiers, perhaps a dozen who's convoy meets up with the truck bomb. These are not the same situations at all.

And once again, until one of us can take a picture of ourselves from Iraq, this conversation is largely an exercise in moral philosophy. We aren't there, we aren't involved, and we can't possobly know the whole situation unil we enlist.

but moral philosophy is what this is.

we are faced with two choices here. to let americans die but take the moral high ground and be better than our enemies. or torture these people (lets remember that torture is also useless) and be no better than them. and then what war are we fighting? are we in the moral right if we torture people? are we any better than these people if we drop to such a level? then what is this war for? freedom? justice? the rights of man? and we're going to win this by torture? what moral high ground is that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

but moral philosophy is what this is.

we are faced with two choices here. to let americans die but take the moral high ground and be better than our enemies. or torture these people (lets remember that torture is also useless) and be no better than them. and then what war are we fighting? are we in the moral right if we torture people? are we any better than these people if we drop to such a level? then what is this war for? freedom? justice? the rights of man? and we're going to win this by torture? what moral high ground is that?

---

How many more deaths should we absorb for the moral high ground? How many mothers should get flags and coffins because we're being moral? There is a difference between being moral and being stupid. And to my mind it would be stupid to let tens or even hundreds of soldiers die for the moral high ground, especially when that high ground was set by people who don't share the risks of the ones in battle. That's the problem. It would be one thing if US Army Generals and so on were saying that we shouldn't torture, and something completely different if it comes from Armchair Generals (like you and me) watching the war on CNN and saying that such things are deplorable, and that the soldiers should die rather than torture. If you'd ever been in combat, or had ever been to Iraq, you'd have a leg to stand on. But you're getting your info from TV (a channel 4 special) not experience.

And because it's the Army that has to deal with the consequences of the decision, the Army should decide the matter. To do otherwise seems like hypocracy. "Yeah you go fight, and fight in a way that doesn't look bad on my TV screen. And I don't care if you die doing it. I don't care if your best friend's life could be saved by getting intelligence from an Iraqi insurgent being kept up past bedtime, don't do it." That isn't fair. And the only way to make it fair would be for you, personally to join the millitary and head for Iraq. Honeslty it sounds more like Marie Antonette's clueless quote:
What, the people don't have bread? Then let them eat cake!

You know.... there's no reliable proof she ever said that. But, real or not, it was a good summary of her stupidity, even if made up.

I know if I was faced with the decision "torture this jackass who TRIED TO KILL ME!!!! in the hopes that I might be able to protect myself and my friends (who probably were the only reason this guy didn't succeed)"- I'd be right there with the pliars and Spice Girls album.

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?

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.

but is it not my morals. it is the morals of the men who sat down at geneva, the judges at the nuremburg trials and the world leaders who signed the human rights act.

it is not fine and it is not necessary but it is evil. but it is not new for america to say the least. the arrogance of the american army when it comes to human rights is well documented.

why does torture need to leave permanant effects? electrocution doesn't leave permanat effects if performed correctly? is that a walk in the park? sleep depravation is extremely painful. exposure to extremes of temperature can be totally crushing. humiliation which is well documented as the american army's greatest enjoyment when it comes to foreign prisoners. water torture wouldn't count either. fake executions.

and when they want something real bad and don't want to get into the mess themselves. they ship the folk out. to countries like uzbekistan, lybia, syria, egypt. where things can get even worse.

what we are talking about is the morality of america. is it any more moral now than korea? is it any less deserving of being bombed the crap out of than afghanistan? is a torturous aggressive regime fit to think of itself as a world leader? or is it more fit to think of itself as in danger of being brought to it's knees like similar regimes?

torture is not allowable in any situation. this was recognised years and years ago. it was in the rules of war, the geneva convetion and the human rights act. under no circumstances no matter what the cost must torture be used.

what is more important? a few more casualties in a war scenario or being able at the end of all this to say that we are just and moral and above our enemies?

No.... torture is NOT against the "morals" of most people. At least not most people at war. I defy you to name a country, any country, in human history, that has engaged in a military conflict without "interogating" (aka- torture) captured enemy prisoners. You can't, because they've all done it. Except the ones that have had other countries do the interogation for them.... that is exactly the same thing.

udsuna would you like to be drageed from your home at night? taken around the world and kept for 4 years? tortured? without legal representation? without being told on what grounds you are being held? is that just and moral to you? is this part of the idea of the american constitution? what people died for? the right to torture?

because all countries have done it does not make it right. most countries in war killed innocents deliberately. is this moral? do you agree with it? all the countries have done it. so why is it immoral?

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.

---

Let me if I can explain this a bit better. It isn't just the act itself that you look at. It's also the situation. So you could have a situation like Columbine HS, where people went in and shot others essentially for fun. Then there's a situation where a person is pointing a gun at you, ready to take your life. Or perhaps a situation where you come upon a person about to murder someone else. Then there are the situations where this person is a mass murderer, someone like a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. where every day hundreds of thousands die simply because the person ordered their deaths.

Now to me killing a person is wrong because it takes away something extremely valuable, that being a human life. So you'd have mitigating circumstances depending on whether the person was about to take someone's life, or several lives.

The first one is pretty obviously wrong. No one would say that killing for fun could ever have any possible justification. No good comes from it.

But on the second and third case (defending yourself, and defending someone else's life), there is a major difference. If you don't shoot the man with the gun, someone will die anyway. The only question in the matter is who will die. So in my view, this would be more or less a wash, unless you wish to consider the worthiness of that life, which would be hard to do.

The third case would be obvious as well, but going in the opposite direction. Since the reason for the commandment (and other forms of the moral law) "Thou shalt not kill", is that it preserves a valuable thing called human life, I think it would be far better to take a single life and thus save thousands than it would be to take 1000 lives because I was unwilling to take the single life that was causing it all. Not to say that taking the single life would be a morally good action in itself, but that the result of not doing so is by far worse than doing so.

and to be on topic, I'll show you how this relates to the whole torture thing.

Why is torture immoral to start with? It's immoral because it causes the other person to suffer and lose his dignity. But the same reasoning holds here, too. Excepting for one thing, suffering is more desirable than death. One can recover from suffering, any suffering. It may take years, but it is possible. Until pheonix-down technology is perfected, there is no cure for death. Once your life is taken, there is no going back.

But just like above, there are different situations in which the torture could happen. First, would be torture for the sake of hatred or because the other person likes to. Second would be the reason C#9 brought up a while back, which is getting a confession. The third would be getting intelligence. The fourth would be that in some totalitarian systems, torture is used to get obediance, or to punish disobediance.

The only torture situation that has any mitigating circumstances is #3. But it would depend on what type of information you could expect to get. It could be the "where is the rebel base" type of intelligence (yes I stole from Star Wars, get over it). That isn't going to save lives, or at least it doesn't seem that it would. The second would be "Where is the ambush", which is better because if you know where the ambush is, you can save the lives of your own soldiers. The third would be "Where is the terrorist attack", which could save many civillian lives.

On the "Rebel Base" scenario, you don't really save lives, because you still have to take the base. That will cost just as many lives if you find it by using an aircraft. It doesn't change the situation, except maybe saving time. So it isn't counterbalanced by any moral good in the results. Therefore, it is immoral.

On the "Ambush" scenario, there is a moral good. You save people in your own army. I would compare this to self defense, except in this case, instead of killing to protect your own people, you are torturing to save your own people, so it is actually more moral than the case of killing for self defense, because you don't even kill the person that you torture.

The "Terrorist Attack" scenario also has a moral good. You save the lives of noncombatants. This would be like shooting the person about to kill someone else, except that again, the person being tortured doesn't die.

Torture would still be wrong in all of those situations, it's just that it can in certain instances be less wrong than allowing the bomb to go off and kill scores of people when you had the ability to stop it.

the accepted rules of war, engagement, the geneva convention, the nuremburg principles and human rights act are as follows.

in a war scenario you are allowed to kill any combatant on the opposing force, unless he has surrendered. at the point you have him prisoner he is out of the game. he is now bound by the geneva convention. at the point before that he was bound by the rules of war which allow you to shoot him. but under both points of war here he is bound by the human rights act. given the fact that he is human and all.

the geneva convention says that once you have a POW certain rules come into play. some of which are beyond the normal human rights act. because as a prisoner he is dependant on his captors so now instead of being allowed to have certain things like food and shelter these must be provided. there are even more rules surrounding the geneva conventions they are worth reading into.

but the point is at this point they are out of the game. that is it. they are totally out of the war. they are no longer soldiers but prisoners. they have no part in the war now.

war is a bloody mess were people will die. but prisoners are no longer part of the war. the bomb they set maybe. the soldier about to walk into maybe. but the prisoner who want to torture is not. he is now under the geneva convention.

and the question is where does this end? what does torture give? the truth? if so we better start buring witches again as they obviously exist look how many confessed before. they'll be plague of them nowadays.

if i'm a hard enough terrorist i'm not going to given into certain instruments of torture. you're gonna need electrocution, beatings, taking my nails off, cutting my lips, burnings to get me to talk. and even then i might just tell you random crap.

and if i'm not a terrorist at all i'm gonna tell you the first thing that comes into my head.

it doesn't work. it gives dumbass soldiers like lindy england work of their aggression on some iraqi.

the one thing that would have prevented the holocaust is if the soldiers had just refused orders. that is what caused the nurmeburg principles to be established.

On principle, I think torture is wrong, but I've never been in combat. There are times where it could conceivably be the lesser of two evils.

only if dropping to the level of your enemy is right. if breaking the geneva convention and human rights which we fought so hard for.

being on the other side doesn't make you any less human. the rules continue to apply. in war certain rules change. torture being wrong doesn't. you accept the concequences of war. you do not reduce your morals for it.

being in combat does not change anything. just because i've not been in combat does not mean i cannot judge. it isn't some mystical world were everything changes. the basic fundamental rules apply. and those who break them should be treated in the same way we treated those we found guilty in nuremburg and the hague.

Quote:

---

in it they had a ex cia, mossad and mi5 and asked them if the ticking bomb scenario (where torturing someone had given information about an imminent threat) had ever happened. they all replied, no.

---

I call 'bull$hit' on this argument. The Mossad doesn't interrogate anyone - it's not an internal security mechanism or organisation. It doesn't handle 'ticking bombs', or anything of the sort. It operates outside of Israel. The 'ticking bomb' scenario has happened a lot of times - and only in the few times we actually managed to capture friends and collaborators of the terrorist, PRIOR to his\hersuntimely demise, along with many Israeli citizens.

Quote:

---

I feel the same way about the Israeli fence around Palestine. I think it's a bad idea to fence off your minorities and treat them all as guilty.

---

The Palestinian Arabs are not a minority within Israel, and they are not Israeli citizens or inhabitants. Having said that, I don't think there's anything wrong with building a wall between you and your neighbour, especially when said neighbour doesn't like you very much and has made a habit of sending off its people to blow up in your streets.

Having made these corrections...

Torture is a necessary evil. I support torture under very specific conditions:
1) When there's an urgency (i.e, a ticking bomb)
2) During war, when one side wishes to acquire information that would make it triumph, or at least make things a bit easier for it.

It seems a bit stupid, at least to me, that during war, when many soldiers are killed and wounded in terrible ways, that torture wouldn't be allowed. Torture often eliminates the need for battles. Having rules for war is also a rather futile attempt.

However, pointless torture for no reason, for lengthy periods of time is not a good, moral or even needed thing, by any standard. It shouldn't be commited.

It's usually hard to care for one's enemy... we should try to, though.

i just quote the program.

and palestine is within israel. it is under occupation after the wars. it is not it's own country. it is a stateless nation.

the geneva convention sets down in writing and has been for ages now that torture is forbidden. under any circumstances. the human rights act echoed it. the rules of war predate it. torture is not acceptable as you are not torturing soldiers. you are torturing prisoners. people who are wholly dependant on you.

back in nuremburg we hung people for crimes of torture. in my eyes there should be no difference between a nazi soldier who commits the act and an american. tried and given punishment.

torture is altogether pointless. it does not work. unless you believe that the the with hunts were good and proper.

that is the level of intelligence we are dealing with that comes from torture. put enough suffering on a person and they will do what it takes to stop it. an innocent person will confess to stop the pain. a guilty person will confess as well. but if he is waiting for something then he is going to lie. he will hold two thoughts in his mind. one that he will need his suffering to end. but he has a mission as well. and will do what it takes to succeed. no you need to make the pain so great that that doesn't matter.

and that is when you need to start electrocuting him, beating him, burning him, using acid. and i believe those we the exact same methods used under sadamme's government.

are we so much better now?

Quote:

---

and palestine is within israel. it is under occupation after the wars. it is not it's own country. it is a stateless nation.

---

Yes, historically-sppeaking, the territories that are now reffered to as 'Palestine' are an integral part of the land of Israel. It has been re-occupied now, as you've said, and so the people living in those areas are not Israelis, and their land isn't part of the new state of Israel. Building a wall between them and the Israelis is just like establishing a border between any two countries.

Now, don't talk to me about humane values. Those are precious and dear to me - but not more than the value of protecting human lives, especially on my own side. I'd rather have a thousand screaming but very-much-alive enemy terrorists, then one dead innocent.

There's a saying in Hebrew, that could be translated like this: "One that shows mercy for the cruel, will end up being cruel to the merciful." Being kind and righteous is all perfectly well - but there are times when you have to show your darker side. Necessary evils to protect the most precious thing of all - human life.

necessary evils are what the ashamed put on their immorality and evil.

humane values should come above saving lives. nuremburg principle.

you let your comrades and innocents die. and then you can stand up and say "look what they are doing and what have we done?" otherwise the everyone else will stand up and say "look what they are doing but are just as evil."

Quote:

---

humane values should come above saving lives.

---

Without humans, there would be no humane values. I cannot understand or accept this statement of yours. Human life is the most important, precious and worthy-of-protection thing in existence.

I am sad to say that, at times, I feel that human life isn't that important... but I feel so with shame, and it's not a joyful perspective on things.

That being said, I'd say going to great lengths to save the lives of those close to you (friends, family, people...) is the right thing to do. I don't care for my enemy - he's better off dead, and he would be dead, if I hasn't some use for him - to extract life-saving information from him.

Information that could win battles, wars, or thwart the enemy's attempts at killing innocents on my side. His pain is nothing, compared to that. This is my stance.

"Without humans, there would be no humane values." what is human without humanity?

and when it comes down to it the world has decided that humanity is more important than victory. and this has been true for a long time. other people's total and absolute lack of humanity has been punished on countless occassions. the idea that once you have a man totally dependant on you for survival you can torture him is absurd.

and it doesn't even work. we know that. the only reason to perform is for the sick deprived pleasure of a dumbass soldier.

Quote:

---

and it doesn't even work. we know that.

---

Now, you see, you don't know that, because you can't know something that isn't in-fact true. :)

No-body's torturing anyone for fun. It takes time, it has a severe mental toll on the interrogator, and believe it or not, most interrogators are honest men who serve their country and people.

Quote:

---

the world has decided

---

There is something very fundamentally wrong with this statement... so deep and wrong, I can't even decide how to address it. Who's 'the world'? What difference does it make to those whose lives are at risk, what 'the world' has decided?

Quote:

---

humanity is more important than victory.

---

We're not talking about victory here, but about saving lives.

okay a quote now from the un human rights act "‘no exceptional circumstances whatsoever’ justify torture. that is the ruling.

and justifiable reasons brings up a funny little piece of information. egypt declared a state of emergency in 1981. that allowed the police and army to do whatever necessary to save lives. it in fact did nothing and allowed the police torture who they wanted. and do we want to know when this emergency act from 1981 was ended? it wasn't.

you can only tell me that torture works when you tell me that they were real witches in the middle ages. and theur confessions were true.

and if it doesn't work it's for only one reason. it's for sick deprived people to do what they want with defenceless people. like lindy england, like mengel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

okay a quote now from the un human rights act "‘no exceptional circumstances whatsoever’ justify torture. that is the ruling.

---

It's a war. You don't get to hand out red cards. :rolleyes2

Seriously, I think the insistance on the "rules of war" without any thought or understanding of what the real consequences of the "rule" is. And you've never bother to show a seconds remorse for the very real people who will die, both soldiers and Iraqis, btw, because you insist on a rule.

I agree that torturing another human being is a terrible thing, and something that should never be done without a damn good reason. But I can't agree with you that it's moral to sacrifice human beings before the altar of Geneva. In fact it seems sort of sick. These soldiers are real people. They have wives, children, mothers and fathers that they want to come home to. They have dreams of who and what they want to be when they get done with the Army. They are not mindless slaves to be used and thrown away.

Yet this seems to be how you see them. They aren't really people. They're cogs in a war machine. And if parts of the war machine get blown up, that's still far better than having the war machine do something to make you uncomfortable. Except that those "cogs in the machine" are actually people. You should meet them sometime.

Quote:

---

you can only tell me that torture works when you tell me that they were real witches in the middle ages. and theur confessions were true.

and if it doesn't work it's for only one reason. it's for sick deprived people to do what they want with defenceless people. like lindy england, like mengel.

---

Well, there are real witches now. We call them Wiccans, so I would suppose there were at least a few during the middle ages.

But the bigger point here is that we aren't doing any torture for confessions. get that through your head, because I'm tired of dealing with this really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. We don't torture for any other reason than to get intelligence on where the bomb is.

Who says it doesn't work? The Homer Simpson principal of "TV says so, so it's true" just isn't good enough. Go find an article by an expert on interigations that says it doesn't work. Find a general that says it's a waste of time. Find someone who's done some research. Find anything other than a TV show, because I can point to a news program that questions whether or not we landed on the moon. I find it hard to take someone seriously whose sole source of information is a single TV special.

no you don't give out red cards. you iust execute the torturers.

yes it is possible if you believe the ticking bomb scenario that people will die. but we are fighting war. people will die. but people should not be tortured. killing people in war is fine. torturing them isn't. doing so can result in hanging.

and don't start the i don't understand thing. my family was military until my generation. and they are cigs in a machine. they signed up to that. to serve no matter what the cost. as catch-22 very well put they are part of the army as much as anyother bit of equipment used to gain an advantage in the army. and what are the wife and children going to say when it turns out daddy's a war criminal no better than mengel or lindy england?

my point about the witches is the level of intelligence you gain from torture. you will say anything. these people confessed to being witches, traitors, hethans, they almost certainly weren't. and they knew the punishment. burning at the stake. a truly horrible way to die. so why confess? to end the torture. you put someone in enough pain they will tell you whatever you want, truth or not, they may confess when innocent, make up something about where the bomb is placed even if they don't know, tell you a wholly random place altogether. is that the level of intelligence we want?

history proves torture doesn't work. the witch, traitor and hethan trials of the middle ages show it doesn't work. the spanish inquisition shows it doesn't work. give a man enough pain and he will say whatever he thinks will get him out. truth or not.

american intelligence is already hugely flawed, tora bora, wmd, links with terrorism. where did these sources come from? countries like saudi arabia, egypt, syria, lybia, uzbekistan. they have some very nasty habits. and we wonder why the intelligence was so flawed? these people said whatever random crap came to mind.

look at the men in camp x-ray. many released. they signed confessions, told where bases where, gave times and dates.

want to know what torture goes on in uzbekistan? torture from information we use. there are two very cute cases. one of a dead man who seems to have his hands immersed in boiling water and his knees and elbows smashed before he dies. another seems to have been boiled to death.

is this how we want intelligence to be gathered? http://www.channel4.com/news/microsi...ic-1863109.jpg

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsi...ic-1231720.jpg

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsi...ic-2010350.jpg

seems like selling our souls for dross to me. anyone remember alexander mitchell?

A note, if I may, on the nature of torture.

Today, torture isn't exactly what you think it is. It's not gruesome, disfiguring, and it probably won't make anyone scream. Mental torture, sleep deprevation, drugs... all those are used today, and are very effective. The most effective ways of extracting information from an un-willing person are kept as a secret.

Now, Could Number Nine, you are partially right about extreme torture leading to the wrong answers from the wrong people - but that happens only part of the time, and only to needlessly cruel and unprofessional interrogators. Today, torture isn't used for CONFESSION - that's illegal. Today, torture isn't used to get yes and no answers, but pieces of information, like "where are your friends", "who are your friends", "when and where is the next action planned for", etc. It's very difficult for a suffering man to fabricate answers for such questions.

it is documented that america uses information extracted from extreme forms of torture such as those in uzbekistan.

quantanamo bay and alexander mitchell are both huge testaments to confessing to and answering very complicated questions. i remember the story of Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul Rhuhel Ahmed. they were held in solitary confinement in camp x-ray for a 3 months. after being interrogated for 12 hours a day, daily while shackled in chains they admitted to meeting with bin laden and mohammed atta in 2000. it was later found that even though many could argue that this cruel and degrading treatement was not torture. (in america you now have to main, cause organ failure or death) they confessed. of course they had never done any of this. they had never left the country in 2000.

they then went onto tell who else met with them, the place, time, date.3 months of this treatment and they had came up with all that. but it was total crap. they wanted out. made up what was needed and job done.

wanna know what else our fun little us army has been up to in cuba?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...597412,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...540782,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...505714,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...483893,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo...003584,00.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010205A.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X-Ray
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer...y404882346.asp
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blo...really_go.html

and what do you do with the innocent man you torture? "where is the bomb? "i dunno" crank up the voltage "where is the bomb" "i dunno" crank up the voltage" "oh sorry mate off you go home now"

is that the society we want. were fundamental human riights are void. dco we remember 1984 and room 101. the one thing that made winston break was not harm or pressure it was the fear of rats. is there something wrong with this? is 1984 the world we want to live in?

so what does torture achieve? false intelligence? a playground for the sickest and most depraved in the army?

it does acheive one thing. it perpetuates terrorism. after abu gahrib people were not happy. people are still un happy. torture will not save the lives of american soldeirs it will end them by the fury which it causes.

and aside from murdering american soldiers it murders the morals which we built up.

the morals we fought and died for. the morals america has seen as void.

Quote:

---

and what do you do with the innocent man you torture?

---

Aww, bloody Hell man, these men are not innocent! It's not like agents roam the flea-markets, find some by-stander, and yell "You! You appear to be an Arab! You MUST know the whereabouts of Ossama Bin Laden!". It's not like that. High-profile intelligence is sorted and used to find the right men, who always know interesting things, and then they are interrogated for several minutes to several days, and that's it. No-body's holding some poor bastard for months and years, and spend good money and work-force on his torture for such lengthy periods of time. After three months of interrogation, whatever that bloke may have to say, is no longer vital, important or even remotely interesting to the intelligence community. It's high-gear, effective interrogation that takes place. And I say once more, that if it's used to save lives, I'd rather have as many of these bastards suffering to oblivion as it takes.

This isn't some Hollywood movie where the hero spends eons in a dark basement and is tortured daily.... torture is an interrogation device, much like manipulation and various other schemes, for one thing - to recieve information, answers to burning questions. That is all.

tell that to the men in quantanamo. those arrested in pakistan. not on the battlefield. tell that to cat stevens. yeah american intelligence.........

and torture is something the american army has taken much pleasure in. throughout modern history that has been shown. bush has ljust legalized it.

it's never been about questions. tell that to the veterans of the rhineland camps, tell that to the people in vietnam, cambodia, korea, tell it to the released from camp x-ray. tell it to lindy englands victims that torture is only used when necessary. that the us can be trusted when it comes to anyone's human rights. it's a total and absolute failure when it comes down to the fundamental rights of man.

what use is guantanamo if it is only used for necessary intelligence? how much intellegence did abu gahrib bring? how much use was the man boiled to death in uzbekistan? was thr intelligence good from the men sent out to egypt, lybia, syria and sudi arabia?

there are people held in quantanamo now for 4 years. a blind cripple and children among them. people not picked up on a battlefield, people taken from their homes in pakistan. these people are subjected daily to inhuman and degrading treatment. 4 years of it. with no representation under law. a total breach of every article before.

but we continue allow this. people are here saying it is good. people are fighting for it right now. the right to inhumanity. the great american dream? is this the america we want?

the ticking bomb scenario does not exist. and if it did you have to apply serious pressure that compared to our uzbek friends previously or that of the argentinian man i showed earlier. and for what?

history judges all of us. and it is not as some people think dictated by the winners. that is in the short term. so when the history books are being written how will modern america be remembered? as a moral country on willing to fall to the level of it's enemies? so just and right that it would do everything to up hold the rights of man. or will it be remembered as another aggressive abusive country? one prepared to drop to the lowest possible level to acheive victory? a country guilty of systematic torture in the long and short term. a country that broke every single rule laid down in order to gain the advantage? no better than the rest of similar regimes?

at that time will people still be able to say god bless america?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

tell that to the men in quantanamo. those arrested in pakistan. not on the battlefield. tell that to cat stevens. yeah american intelligence.........

and torture is something the american army has taken much pleasure in. throughout modern history that has been shown. bush has ljust legalized it.

it's never been about questions. tell that to the veterans of the rhineland camps, tell that to the people in vietnam, cambodia, korea, tell it to the released from camp x-ray. tell it to lindy englands victims that torture is only used when necessary. that the us can be trusted when it comes to anyone's human rights. it's a total and absolute failure when it comes down to the fundamental rights of man.

what use is guantanamo if it is only used for necessary intelligence? how much intellegence did abu gahrib bring? how much use was the man boiled to death in uzbekistan? was thr intelligence good from the men sent out to egypt, lybia, syria and sudi arabia?

there are people held in quantanamo now for 4 years. a blind cripple and children among them. people not picked up on a battlefield, people taken from their homes in pakistan. these people are subjected daily to inhuman and degrading treatment. 4 years of it. with no representation under law. a total breach of every article before.

---

Can you prove to me that people are doing this for fun?

Can you prove we've never gotten useable intelligence from Abu Graib? Do you honestly think that they'd tell you if they did? That would negate the value of the intelligence that they were gathering. That would tell them straight up if a person gets captured, change the plans, because he'll be tortured into telling the Americans. So rather than tip off the enemy by saying so on CNN, they would probably tend to be rather quiet about the value of the intelligence.

And again, I'm not asking you to spam pictures of Abu Graib, or news articles about Abu Graib/Gitmo, I asked for a professional interrigator that says torture doesn't get the intelligence they need, or a general in the armed services of the US that says torture isn't necessary. I'll assume that the pictures you're posting mean that you can't find such an article.

Quote:

---

but we continue allow this. people are here saying it is good. people are fighting for it right now. the right to inhumanity. the great american dream? is this the america we want?

the ticking bomb scenario does not exist. and if it did you have to apply serious pressure that compared to our uzbek friends previously or that of the argentinian man i showed earlier. and for what?

history judges all of us. and it is not as some people think dictated by the winners. that is in the short term. so when the history books are being written how will modern america be remembered? as a moral country on willing to fall to the level of it's enemies? so just and right that it would do everything to up hold the rights of man. or will it be remembered as another aggressive abusive country? one prepared to drop to the lowest possible level to acheive victory? a country guilty of systematic torture in the long and short term. a country that broke every single rule laid down in order to gain the advantage? no better than the rest of similar regimes?

at that time will people still be able to say god bless america?

---

First off, what is this "we" jazz? You're Scottish, not American. There is no "we" unless you've somehow managed to become an American since the last time we debated this. So to be frank and honest, you don't get to decide what America will be like in ten years.

And I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that there has never been, nor will there ever be, a ticking bomb scenario. That seems to be something else that the intelligence people would tend to keep quiet, rather than tip off the plotters, who would change their plans so as not to get caught.

As to the History Books -- who cares. That's about 8th or 9th in priorities.

Just so we're on the same page, here's the list.

1. Human Lives. Saving the most human lives possible is the most ethical thing you can do.
2. Safety of said human lives, so as people aren't in danger of dying.
3. Human dignity. People shouldn't be mistreated etc. They should have the basics of life etc.
4. Private property.
5. Rule of Law.
6. Serving the will of my own people.
7. Diplomatic stuff. Getting along with the world.
8. The way history will view my actions.

That's how I see things. I'm not going to worry about the stuff like diplomacy or the "history book" unless I can do so while taking care of all the things ahead of it on the list. If no one is still alive, then what use is a history book? Or having Europe love us? Or having high approval numbers? Now if it were possible to have everything on that list, I'd do it in a minute. But one of the funny things about life is that you can't get everything you want. So all things being equal, I'd rather have more lives saved.

We aren't fighting for the "right to inhumanity", we're trying to stabilize a country on the brink of civil war, where any Iraqi at any time can be blown up at the moment. And for the record, the northern Kurds are more brutal with the insurgency than we are. They don't arrest insurgents in Kurdistan, they execute them.

why torture doesn't work a historical point of view. guy fawkes was captured on the 5th of november trying to blow up the houses of parliament he was found in the basement sorrunded by gun powder. no confession was needed.

what was needed were the name of his conspirators what we could class today as terrorists. roaming the streets and had just tried to blow up the king. dangerous people in deed. of high worth like any al qaeda terrorist.

so using medieval torture methods how long did it take for mr fawkes to submit? 1 hour? 6hours? a day? more than enough time for any bomb to detonate. he infact lasted a few days after being tortured by permission from the king. it was of course dangerous times there had just been a catholic plot to kill the king and they were men still capaable of doing it on the streets who knew what they were capable or had planned? but it still took days for guy fawkes to submit.

most bombs go off within about 3 hours of being planted. ambushes the same. bombs do not rest over night neither do people in ambush. you need to be pretty damn hard with what you do in order to gain information from arrest to 3 hours time. you need to be considerably harder than the medieval tactics used on guy fawkes.

you're going to need to smash some legs and use some very hot liquid to move that fast. is that the level america is at?

and that is proof that they are doing it for fun. aside from the smile on lindy england's face. it doesn't work. what was the purpose of the rhinemeadows? information? or a sick pleasure in human suffering? if it doesn't work there is one reason for it. mengel probably felt the same unless of course you belief he was doing it for science.

and the we was as a human being and member of the western world. and if the world is pushed hard enough "we" maybe the ones to decide america's future in the next 10 years.

the ticking bomb scenario doesn't work because of the amount of time given. a large scale heavily planned attack like 9-11 that takes years to plan and buidl up may be foiled. but not a road side bomb just planted on the streets of bagdhad. the ira bombs went off within less than 3 hours of being planted. you don't want to leave bombs lying around. they have a habit of being found. the best bet is to detonate them early. suicide bombers don't even need to plant bombs. you need to catch him between leaving his home and his target. you need to be pretty damn quick with the man you are torturing. better for the hammers and saws out for that then.

and torture breaks 3,5,6,7,8 anyway. i would have loved to see lindy england tried under geneva. and for real kicks i would have done it at nuremburg. or in between milosevic's trials at the hague. becuase she is no better than them. no torturer is.

a quote direct from article 17 of the geneva convention relating to captivity of pow's is "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

and there gnostic yevon you have your view. not that it doesn't work. because guy fawk'es did confess after all. but that it is simply not allowed.

article 3 says much the same.

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;"

but did guy fawke's submit in time to give any promise to the idea of the ticking bomb scenario? no. do we really believe that so many witches were killing harvests, children, animals and flying around on brooms? they confessed to it. willing to die one of the most painful deaths.

and the reason why you need dimplomacy is because it decides if you live or die. want to know why attacks in iraq went up after abu gahrib? because people don't like the idea. it doesn't save lives in that way. it makes alot of people very angry and willing to take very bloody vengence.

and that is why it is also a failure. it doesn't give good information, it's frankly slow even if it did, and it makes the world hate you and that is going to cost more lives at the end of the day.

and if it doesn't work it's for one purpose. the same reason mengel did it. not for science, not for humanity. but because he was a sick little bastard.

*sighs*

Look, there... it is obvious you don't really know what you're speaking of. Having seen, heard of and experienced the things you speak of (bomb plantings, ambushes, etc), I can tell you you're very much misguided, and your perception and knowledge are flawed.

The Intelligence Community's goal is to re-act faster than the enemy can act. That means thinking faster than the enemy, and using every possible way and manner to attain vital information, for the ultimate goal is saving lives - not keeping to the lines of some retarded, archaic document that some fart-faces that do not understand the rigors of war wrote down half a century ago.

It's just a freaking document. It's not absolute law. For me, the moral code I live by and so does my country, says that saving lives is above everything - and certainly above some high-in-the-clouds International Law, or some-such.

If we have to torture to save lives and to prevent further killings, we will do so. It's a good thing people with your line of thinking do not affect our security, Cloud Number Nine, for it is very dangerous to place ideals above the very life of people. I salute to every Intelligence soldier, officer or agent that has ever had to dirty him or herself with the cruel but necessary act of torture, when the principle of saving lives stood before their eyes.

EDIT: A little joke, that's actually at my country's expense. ;)

There's a contest between three internal security organisations - the American FBI, the Russian KGB and the Israeli Shabach. An elephant is released into the wild each time, and whomever catches after as least time has passed - wins.

The FBI's elephant is released. They deploy sensitive electronic equipment, use sattelite images, and various other hi-tech stuff, and find the elephant after two days.

The KGB's elephant is released. They use agents, informers, inside information from the woodsy animals, and find the elephant after a day.

The Shabach's elephant is released. The agents return after two hours with a cat.

"What's this?" they were asked.
"It confessed to being an elephant." The Shabach agents replied.

:D

And, again, Cloud.... you're NOT on the front lines. When you stand, ready to defend the freedoms and rights you seem to value so well. And not just hide in your little corner of the world pretending you have the first idea what it's like out there. But actually out THERE.... and you manage to apprehend someone who was trying to kill you.... and you have the chance to find out if/what they know about others. If you're willing to forego the tried-and-proven-true methods of interrogation called "torture", you will THEN have room to talk. Until then, you have no rights to judge their actions.

Besides, torture is even HONORABLE in war. Warriors, on the battlefield, understand one another. They might hate one another, but there's a mutual (if unspoken) agreement that they're going to fight with everything they're capable. It's disrespectful and insulting not to carry out that implied promise. They'll do it to us, we'll do it to them, and that's only fair.

Oh, and as a disclaimer.... the sick bastards that actually ENJOY this cruelty are an entirely different subject. When it comes to the necessities of war, it's acceptable. When it comes for the sole purpose of amusement, it's not.

Quote:

---

When it comes for the sole purpose of amusement, it's not.

---

No government does that crap for amusements. At least, I hope not. If a government agent interrogates someone for the rightheous goal, I don't care if he enjoys it, there's no law against that. I actually think it's a terrible job to have. Imagine yourself a grown man, a father and a husband, having to come back to the warmth of your home, after spending a day or more interrogating the very face of evil, using cruel methods... I'd find it difficult to hug my wife and kids with the same arms that break bones. Then again, I haven't got a wife and kids.

becaused i haven't experienced war i can't say what is right and wrong? did you experience the holocaust? can you tell me the pro's and con's of it? did you experience the dying in africa? can you tell me if that is right or wrong?

you do not need experience to judge.

the geneva convention is not just a document. it is law. and it is in fact international law. two pieces of text are the highest in this world. the geneva convention and the human rights act. those two (as well as many others). come before any other in this world. they come before your morals and your countries laws. they are the most important international law and bind everyone and everything. and breaking them can carry the heaviest penalties.

torture as we have discussed before does not prevent killings. it takes too long a time. guy fawkes took a few days. people in quantanamo took a few months. bombs and ambushes don't sit around too long. they go off within hours of being planted. they aren't left to be found and disarmed. they are detonated as soon as possible.

and unlike you war angel i would never salute mengel, lindy england, or any other torturer. i'd look at in him the same way i look at something i would wipe off my boot. there is no justification.

and udsuna tell me does this man look honorable to you?

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsi...ic-1863109.jpg

are these honorable tools of war?

http://www.channel4.com/news/microsi...ic-2010350.jpg

is this an honorable act?

http://www.jeffooi.com/archives/iraq_040506_WaPo1.jpg

did this man understand and respect his torturer?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4...rman_ap300.jpg

no the promise in battle is that you don't drop this far. there are places you just don't go. you don't use landmines, you don't use flamethrowers, you don't kill the unarmed, and you do not torture prisoners.

there is law against torture enjoyed or not. i shivver to think of mengel hugging his children. and it's a job you can refuse. nuremburg principle infact states you need to. and there is no reason except for enjoyment.

you can't spend days torturing a man when you need information in 3 hours.

This is going no-where. You keep on holding to your baseless opinions, when you're talking to people who actually know what they're talking about.

I don't think I'll post here unless you have something else to say beside 'torture is wrong, saving lives isn't everything, international law is sacred'.

So, I'll sum this up:

Torture is needed to save the lives of people threatened by the collaborators of the person torture, or the organisation he belongs to, etc. I think saving lives is MORE important than some disconnected-from-reality International Law. Those are the things I disagree on with Cloud Number Nine.

but it doesn't save lives.

and don't think you are up there with the high and mighty just because you've seen conflict. this does not make you a better man than me. you are not superior because of your occupation. don't forget that. don't stand on your pedestal there thinking you have any greater grounds for arguement than anyone else.

torture will not save lives unless you can torture a man in 3 hours. that is going to be hellishly severe. guy fawkes with stood days with medieval torture methods including probably the rack. you've got to find some way to get a man to give you enough to stop a plamnted bomb. now you've either got to totally break this man harder and faster than we managed guy fawkes or admit the futility in torture.

or you could carry on regardless because a part of you likes the power in having a man totally at your will.

Quote:

---

this does not make you a better man than me.

---

No, just a more knowledgeble one.

Quote:

---

don't stand on your pedestal there thinking you have any greater grounds for arguement than anyone else.

---

Oh, but I do. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on the subject - but I am certainly more familiar with it than you, or most people that frequent these boards. Now, if we had an internal security agent in here, that would be nice... we probably do, we just don't know who he is. :D

Quote:

---

torture will not save lives unless you can torture a man in 3 hours.

---

Why 3 hours? Why not 10 minutes? Why not 4 days? Don't get stuck on crap. No scenario has a set time-limit. A skilled interrogator can get answers out of a man in minutes - sometime mere threats are all it takes. Sometimes some blackmail works. Torture happens after everything else has failed.

Interrogation saves lives. Capturing terrorists and doing whatever it takes to divuldge information from them saves lives. Saving lives is the most important thing. That is all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the geneva convention is not just a document. it is law. and it is in fact international law. two pieces of text are the highest in this world. the geneva convention and the human rights act. those two (as well as many others). come before any other in this world. they come before your morals and your countries laws. they are the most important international law and bind everyone and everything. and breaking them can carry the heaviest penalties.

---

It's thinking like that which empowers the BNP and radical militia groups.

thinking like what? that fundamental human rights and morals are important?

and i choose 3 hours as that is about the maximum the ira left a bomb for. except in two specific cases. the brighton bomb and the attempt to kill diana and prince charles in a theatre. planted bombs were mostly drop and run.

You must remember cloud he isn't just talking about droped bombs but planned attacks. Which could somtimes be months away. Sometimes you know you will be attacked within a certian timeframe, but don't know exactly when, how, or where. Torture may pull these answers out(though I am not a fan of those extremes).

As for the law issue. No MERE law laid down by a bunch of politicians is more important to me then my morality. I may believe something to be true that they didn't. I may feel with all my heart that I am right. And for me I may be so. And I will be damned if I let another person override what I feel/know is right.

International law is moot for the most part. The only way it works is if EVERYONE aggrees to abide by it. Or at least that anyone who breaks it is punished. Now for a second here you may think I am aggree with you. But have no doubt that I am not. You see, they don't follow it. Thus they have voided the document. This means we don't have to follow it unless we feel that it is the right thing to do. And for those of us who realize that the world is a skew of greys, know that absolutes tend to fail. Thus, while torture may be wrong and immoral, there are cases where it is neccesary and justifiable.


Wow.... I must be in a bad mood today. That appears overly harsh now that I reread it. Hmm... I dont' think I can rewrite it in a good way so I'll just leave it as this with a disclaimer saying not to take to badly, just a bad mood.

by dropped bombs i didn't mean from planes i meant of the type where a guy walks along a street and leaves his briefcase. or parks his car next to a shop. those are the kinds of attacks as well as suicide bombers were are seeing in iraq.

and international isn't void if people refuse to abide by it in the same way domestic law isn't void if a few people commit rape and murder.

My bad... by dropped I was refering to set in place. I should have been more clear(how did I miss that when I revised my post?!).


Ah but you see, if someone attempts to rape or kill your girlfreind and you kill or critically wound the guy. You know what? You just broke the law. But you'll(most likley) be let off. Why? You were defending an innocent human life. The same goes for these laws. 'Cept they didn't take in mind the afforementioned situation. Protecting innocent Human life is more important then protecting a criminal or someone who is trying to kill said innocent life or yourself and comrades(I say this cause some would say soldiers aren't innocent).

And if torture can do that(which I could see in some situations it possibly working) then that is what is neccesary.

As for more on the break the law issue. Once a criminal has broken the law. He/She is no longer protected by the law to the same extent they were. Hence you can kill a criminal who is attempting to kill you or a loved one. They have voided thier rights(to an extent) by being criminal. Now if the other side won't follow the rules in international law, they have voided their rights under international law. if they want to be protected by international law. They should follow international law. This is why I don't expect to see trials held against torturers of americans that take part in the torture and the like. Why? They have broken the law and voided some of thier rights under said law. However, that doesn't mean they can't kill the guy in an attempt escape or during a rescue or some such.

Let me put it this way. In most circumstances, I'm an idealist. I support international law, the Geneva Conventions, and human rights. That said, if torture could prevent the next 9-11, I say go for it. Not nice, not pretty, but life seldom is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

thinking like what? that fundamental human rights and morals are important?

---

Thinking that a nation's actions are subject to any external body.

then yes they are. that is the way the world is governed. it's the same laws which allowed us to try in nuremburg. at the end of the day there needs to be some higher power able to say "now mr sadamma/north korea/lybia that isn't jolly nice and if you don't stop it we will kick you in the head"

law and order on an international scale.

"Ah but you see, if someone attempts to rape or kill your girlfreind and you kill or critically wound the guy. You know what? You just broke the law." actually you didn't. the law allows for this, reasonable defence of you and others. reasonable force for defence has alays been allowed.

torture on the other hand is absolutely ruled against. in possible situation is it to be allowed. upon punishment of death.

certain human rights are voided upon criminality. the right to freedom being one of them. but most still apply and how this all works is found in the declaration.

"Now if the other side won't follow the rules in international law, they have voided their rights under international law." no it's exactly the opposite certainly for morality. do you want to drop to the level of our enemies? do we want to start beheading people. at that point what do we fight for? freedom and justice? if we're fallen so far that we are no longer within our own morals then we have no justifiable reason to fight. we are no better than the enemies we are trying to fight.

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

would we be okay if we had seen lindy england tortured? would it be anymore shocking if it was her in those pictures being abused? or would we shrug it off as we are now saying it is necessary?

at the end of the day the law is there. and so is punishment the nazi leaders had it, milosevic and sadamme will have it. it's just a shame lindy england and the rest of her ilk won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

law and order on an international scale.

---

So you proposal a world government that the whole world has the right to vote in? If not then how to you suppose we enforce international law? What about those who don't want to join in on the thing? The questions go on and on with this on what you mean and how you would do it.

I for one think the way the EU is headed is on the right track in bringing everyone together under one government. Start off economically and then expand from there. If it will ever truely come to be the country of Europe is yet to be seen and who knows when down the path it will be stopped entirely.

The UN operates in a represented fashion. the people we vote for are the people in the UN for our countries.

and there is option to join in such treaties as the human rights act, anti-torture legislation and geneva convention. they are accepted as international law and so everyone must abide. in the same way you didn't sign for your own countries rules. you accept them and abide by them or face the concequences.

What concequences does dis-obeying the UN have? The US invaded Iraq and that is against 'International Law'. What happened? Nothing. The UN has no way to enforce their 'Laws' thus it is on the honor system and if someone doesn't feel like sticking to it the only way to get it enforced is to have someone who opposes the country step up and have the power to do so.

That is a pretty ty system of law and does not work. Also, I don't vote who goes to the UN as my representative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

What concequences does dis-obeying the UN have? The US invaded Iraq and that is against 'International Law'. What happened? Nothing. The UN has no way to enforce their 'Laws' thus it is on the honor system and if someone doesn't feel like sticking to it the only way to get it enforced is to have someone who opposes the country step up and have the power to do so.

---

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 are the attacks popularly percevied as illegal 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.

(edited for clarity)

The UN didn't have a leg to stand on where the Iraq invasion was concerned. The countries that protested the most were ones who had allegedly been participating in illegal arms trading. Iraq broke a ton of UN resolutions, and the UN did nothing.

The UN has become pathetic. It does nothing to prevent such travesties as the genocide in Rwanda in the mid-90s, but gets outraged over not signing ecological treaties and resolutions. Give me a break.

So then. Self defense is a human right? Oh good. But the question is how are the words defined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selfdefense

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

---

Now lets see. Threat of violence. Check. Force or means. Check. Reasonable force? shall we see what defines reasonable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reasonable

rea·son·a·ble Audio pronunciation of "reasonable" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rz-n-bl)
adj.

1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.

---

Reasonable? Check.

Torture makes all the neccesities of self-defense. So if self-defense is a human right... then torture can indeed be used. Remember torture is only a tool. And like any other it can be used for multiple purposes. If you use torture in how most of those arguing on its side say it is/should be used then it is indeed a form of selfdefense. Just like in the threatened rape murder scenario. I kill the fella before he can kill me, thus preventing his attack. Which from what I have gathered is exactly what torture is being argued to be used for.

So which is it? does selfdefense break the law? or is selfdefense legal, and thus torture in selfdefense also legal?

Torture doesn't constitute self-defense as it isn't against the person initiating the force/threat of force. In fact, there's not even a specific, proven threat of force - only a generalized fear.

Self-defense is purely legal and rational. Torture is irrational and should definitely be illegal. I do not have the right to hurt SOMEONE ELSE to try and stop an action. If someone threatens to beat me up, I don't have the right to beat his friend up to get him to stop.

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.

the battle algiers was a military success. but the french lost that war because of it. we could continue in iraq the same way.

you keep pissing folk off and they will kill you. no matter how much intelligence you have tortured a man "the bomber will always get through". more people will die than we save if we continue torturing. children will grow up bitter and want revenge and they walk out in front of the us convoy and they will blow themselves up. if you wanna piss folk off torture them. and they will piss you off more. coffins and bodybags are the price american soldiers will pay for intelligence.

it is not possible to use torture to defend against immineint terrorist attacks. there is no way you can get from arrest to torture to preventing a bombing in 3 hours. 3 hours is used as it was the longest conceivable time you would leave a bomb anywhere. that's from the ira. you need to use seriously obscene methods of torture to get that much that quick. if you're looking at the long term look at the successes of guantanamo to see what long term "soft" torture brings. there was a man confessing to be osama bin laden, a man who confessed to meet him and plenty other fantasy stories. wonder why american military intelligence has became on oxymoron?

pre emptive in terms of self defence is when he has made an attempt or prepared. looking at you funny doesn't count. drawing a knife or gun does.

the human rights court at the hage enforces these laws. america excempted itself. these courts are working we are trying milosevic. at nuremburg they worked (though most head guys would commit suicide). but america refuses to recognise it. and who's gonna stand up to that? only a few group of people are crying revenge for american torture. those people are platnting roadside bombs in iraq. but i for one would have loved to see lindy england tried between milosevic's hearings, or before sadamme's. nothing more than a war criminal.

and i would protect my family. but i will not become my enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

it is not possible to use torture to defend against immineint terrorist attacks. there is no way you can get from arrest to torture to preventing a bombing in 3 hours. 3 hours is used as it was the longest conceivable time you would leave a bomb anywhere. that's from the ira. you need to use seriously obscene methods of torture to get that much that quick.

---

Riiiight, because the IRA has the same MO as ETA, Al'Quada, Operation Rescue, Hamas, the Grey Wolves, the Shining Path, Omega 7, and God's Army. :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

and i would protect my family. but i will not become my enemy.

---

Your enemy is out to kill your family. The primary concern of yours should be to prevent that. To fight in a way which restricts our options makes us weaker.

Quote:

---

pre emptive in terms of self defence is when he has made an attempt or prepared. looking at you funny doesn't count. drawing a knife or gun does.

---

Looking at you funny can indeed be a form of preparation. The whole deal with war and fighting is to decieve and trick your opponent to get you into a prime position. Well maybe not war anymore I ain't up with newer tactics, but I do know from my freinds and myself who have studied martial arts that it is all about reading minute body/facial signs as well as using your body/facial signs to fool your opponent. Thus a large amount of stuff can fall under the umbrella of preparation.

Also in the way it is being discussed mostly in this thread it is concerning people that aren't meerly looking at you 'funny', rather they are already proven to be of the enemy. You capture an enemy to find where the enemy will next attack.

As for it upsetting people. Torturing people that are fighting and attempting to kill to protect the people under your wings does not frighten me. You see, I can draw a line on who they torture and don't. And the only reason I would have to be afraid is if I thought I was on that list. And if they only harm those who are trying to harm them(selfdefense) then I wouldn't be on that list. Killing one person(in selfdefense like if you are facing a gun toting maniac) doesn't mean you'll go around and kill anyone you run accross. There are lines made. It isn't black and white in this world of ours, good thing too I just love the colors pink and purple.


Edit-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cloud

and i would protect my family. but i will not become my enemy.

---

If you tortured a mob member you wouldn't become them unless you went around doing mobby things to your neighbors and such. Just because you use a similar tool to your enemy does not mean you are your enemy. Else whys gun owners would be in trouble... they both use guns. Just like in many wars both sides use torture. Torture as I keep saying is a tool... and tools(even guns) can be used for good and evil.

Now as I have said Multiple times, I personally find it distasteful. And would try anything but it to do somthing. But in the event that I can't save some of my own through other means and there is that chance of success through less appealing means, then why not try to save the lives of your own? Are you trying to say we should not try to save one another from harm? It is a tool, one that can be tainted and one that is often misused but a tool none-the-less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"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.

---

It doesn't work that way. My point is that what Geneva is is an arbitrary standard, one that never considers the circumstances under which it might be violated.

And my point with Bushido, is that it too it an arbitrary standard of warfare, with its own rules and regulations. For instance, there is the rule of never surrender, and that it is preferable to die rather than be captured. There is the ethic of never retreating. And one that held that taking a castle by starvation or disease rather than battle was dishonorable. In fact, there was a case in a famous battle in which a general gave his enemy food because it would be "dishonorable" to win the battle by starving out his enemy.

But the problem with any arbitrary set of rules is that they only really work if everybody plays by the same rules. Had one general been following Bushido, and thus feeding his enemy out of a desire for an "honorable" victory, whilst the other had been throwing dead bodies over his castle walls as they used to do in medieval battles in Europe, it doesn't seem like much of a contest, our honorable Bushido Knight and his men die of some plague caused by the dead bodies, while the European Knight gets free rice. It only really works if both sides follow the rules, otherwise you're quite frankly safer to throw away the rule book.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Yes they may face charges after the battle is over. I have no problem with that. In fact they probably should face charges. But "legal" and "moral" are not the same thing. And since to my mind it's more moral to torture one Iraqi and save a convoy of a dozen or so men, I'd choose that option. Just like it might be illegal to kill, yet if this person were about to kill my family, I'd shoot that man and worry about the trial afterwards. I'd plead the whole case before the court and accept what comes.

Quote:

---

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.

---

You want living people to be martyred to a piece of paper? It doesn't give the troops more reason to fight, and it gives the anti-war movement at home another reason to demand a pull-out. So each death brings us closer to the chopper evacuation of Vietnam, not the USS Missouri and the peace treaty that ended WW2.

Another news flash -- the insurgents and their families already hate us. For lots of reasons, depending on who they are. Actually, I read a list of the insurgent groups, and they range from Islamic groups to Communists to Anarchists. At any rate, we're not going to be able to do anything more to piss off the insurgents. They already want us dead. What *now* they're gonna get mad? What they're gonna dig up the corpses and blow 'em up again?

Quote:

---

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.

---

They hate americans because we're in their country. That's it. It isn't like we invaded France or Germany where they were used to human rights. They don't hate us for human rights abuses because they have no idea what it means to have human rights. Saddam would kill a political prisoner and charge the family for the bullet. He tortured the entire soccer team for losing in the World Cup. We don't use rape as punishment, as Saddam did. If anything, we're treating the average Iraqi better than they are used to, not worse. What are they going to backlash against?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Burma and Iraq are two different countries. The Burmese are primarily Buddhists and come from a nation influenced by Thailand, China, and India. Iraq is a Muslim nation, that was part of several empires in its history -- Babylonian, Persian, Byzantine, Ottoman, etc, before becoming an independant state ruled first by an absolute monarchy, which was overthrown by a Leftist government, which was overthrown by another group, which was later overthrown by the Ba'athist Party. In short, the modern history is one of violent revolution followed by repression. This is apples and oranges. In Iraq, judging by their history, people express their desires by gun rather than speech or the ballot. "Hearts and Minds" as you call it, wouldn't make sense to Iraqis.

"Riiiight, because the IRA has the same MO as ETA, Al'Quada, Operation Rescue, Hamas, the Grey Wolves, the Shining Path, Omega 7, and God's Army." actuall they do. noone with any common sense would leave a bomb laying around for a long period of time. the quicker it detonates the less likely it is of being found and disarmed. leaving a suitcase on a train for a week or parking a car outside a police station in baghdad for a few days will arouse suspicions and someone might take a peek.

pre emptive strikes have a habit of being flawed. like the pre-emptive iraq war. pre emptive movement leads to mistake as it is based only on intelligence. which really the american defence lacks anyway.

"And the only reason I would have to be afraid is if I thought I was on that list. And if they only harm those who are trying to harm them(selfdefense) then I wouldn't be on that list." but that is not the case. you are america. you are part of a system that tortures prisoners. after abu gahrib bombings of american troops doubled. not because they were looking for lindy england. they just wanted to kill american soldiers. didn't matter who. it was just one less war criminal to them. you are on that list. a potential target. your country has pissed alot of people off. and one day you may suffer for that.

torture is the worst crime possible you can commit. worse than rape and murder. there is only one worse crime possible. genocide. and i will not be reduced to that. american soldiers may lack morals. but them and their comrades will pay for that in the end.

"The Burmese are primarily Buddhists and come from a nation influenced by Thailand, China, and India." nope. burma is one of the most horrible sytates in existant. far from budhist morals. right now aside from oppressing, killing and torturing (yay!) their own people they have a habit of gassing them too. one of the most secret nations on earth as well. a truly horrible country ran by a military junta. it has labour camps, state sanctioned rape, child soldiers, no freedom of speech, iraq didn't touch it. it also used to be a british colony.

"My point is that what Geneva is is an arbitrary standard, one that never considers the circumstances under which it might be violated" exactly. because there is no excuse or justification. torture is not heavily used by the iraqi insurgents anyway. and even if it was is that our best excuse? "they started it"? "they're doing it as well" "the big boys get to do it?" you can fight a war without it.

and do we really want to drop that low? is that the country you want to be in? carrying out the same acts as north korea? burma? lybia? syria? sadamme? milosevic? memgel? is that the people we want to stand with? the people we have moral equivalent too?

"We don't use rape as punishment" actually rape was used in abu gharib. as well as many others. taguba's report into what the good american military do with their time is a nice read. are you going to tell me pouring phosphur on a man is a good thing?

what morals does the american army have left? what feet to stand on when they swear to fight for justice?

and if you want to see how much it affects the iraqi people. watch nick berg's execution. somone seriously pissed them off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"Riiiight, because the IRA has the same MO as ETA, Al'Quada, Operation Rescue, Hamas, the Grey Wolves, the Shining Path, Omega 7, and God's Army." actuall they do. noone with any common sense would leave a bomb laying around for a long period of time. the quicker it detonates the less likely it is of being found and disarmed. leaving a suitcase on a train for a week or parking a car outside a police station in baghdad for a few days will arouse suspicions and someone might take a peek.

---

Well if you really wanted you could leave a bomb for a longer time in an attempt to predict what your opponent would do. Of course that is always unrealiable but It can be quite affective. I'll see if I can come up with an example afterschool(gotta leave soon, but I am sure prediction can work with bombs as it does with other type of actions).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

pre emptive strikes have a habit of being flawed. like the pre-emptive iraq war. pre emptive movement leads to mistake as it is based only on intelligence. which really the american defence lacks anyway.

---

So all selfdefense is flawed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"And the only reason I would have to be afraid is if I thought I was on that list. And if they only harm those who are trying to harm them(selfdefense) then I wouldn't be on that list." but that is not the case. you are america. you are part of a system that tortures prisoners. after abu gahrib bombings of american troops doubled. not because they were looking for lindy england. they just wanted to kill american soldiers. didn't matter who. it was just one less war criminal to them. you are on that list. a potential target. your country has pissed alot of people off. and one day you may suffer for that.

---

And was I not on the list from before this war and torture? If someone can not determine the difference between people and what they do and what they do in different situations, then perhaps they should not be on this earth anyways. They will likely only bring sadness and unhappiness. As I said. I have enough intelligence that I can infer that a certian treatment is only for those who try to kill one of a persons own. And since I would rather not kill anyone I think I would be safe from such treatment.

I think I mentioned I wouldn't be terribly surprised or even angry if I heard american soldiers were being tortured or shown scenes thereof. The soldiers most likley knew that at some point they may end up in enemy hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

torture is the worst crime possible you can commit. worse than rape and murder. there is only one worse crime possible. genocide. and i will not be reduced to that. american soldiers may lack morals. but them and their comrades will pay for that in the end.

---

This I disaggree with I would rather be tortured then raped or murdered. Torture can be endured... murder... well I have never heard of someone surviving murder. Perhaps a murder attempt but not murder itself. After all the definition is TO kill.. not to attempt to kill.

Torture doesn't always have to cause emotional damage(depending on the form.. but I beleive most of us argueing are more for the mild forms and the limiting or blocking of the harsher methods), whereas rape can easily seriosally damage someone's spirit. So this would probably depend on the person. Someone who is highly emotional and sensitive, but has a fair endurance for suffering, would likley rather put up with pain that is mostly physical then to put up with something, that for them, was highly painful for the spirit. Not just mental but down even deeper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"My point is that what Geneva is is an arbitrary standard, one that never considers the circumstances under which it might be violated" exactly. because there is no excuse or justification. torture is not heavily used by the iraqi insurgents anyway. and even if it was is that our best excuse? "they started it"? "they're doing it as well" "the big boys get to do it?" you can fight a war without it.

---

If you say there is no circumstance where it can be justified, not only have you lied but you have tried to simplify our world. Remember I like color. Black and white is not only boring but quite a lie. There is always an exception somewhere, somehow. Even if we do not see it in a thousand million years... one will arise sometime. Thus, anything that claims something is 100% absolute is most likely a lie of somesort. And those that aren't I have clauses for... so you see not even I believe that my absolute believe is absolute.

Quote:

---

"The Burmese are primarily Buddhists and come from a nation influenced by Thailand, China, and India." nope. burma is one of the most horrible sytates in existant. far from budhist morals. right now aside from oppressing, killing and torturing (yay!) their own people they have a habit of gassing them too. one of the most secret nations on earth as well. a truly horrible country ran by a military junta. it has labour camps, state sanctioned rape, child soldiers, no freedom of speech, iraq didn't touch it. it also used to be a british colony.

---

I'm talking about the history of the country, not the modern state. My point is that the history of a country determines how they'll view an action. A country that has a history that is more peaceful would understand a "heart and mind" approach, while a war-like state will view the same approach as a sign of weakness. In other words, what works in one place won't work in another.

Quote:

---

"My point is that what Geneva is is an arbitrary standard, one that never considers the circumstances under which it might be violated" exactly. because there is no excuse or justification. torture is not heavily used by the iraqi insurgents anyway. and even if it was is that our best excuse? "they started it"? "they're doing it as well" "the big boys get to do it?" you can fight a war without it.

---

Well, I'm not asking to use it because I want to. But there are circumstances where following the letter of the law will cause so much death that it would be immoral to do so. And any law that doesn't allow for such a possibility is an irrational law. It doesn't have to mean that the violators comepletely get off, just that in some situations the results of not breaking the law would be so severe that a just judge might take into account the circumstances and lessen the penalty.

Suppose a state were to outlaw meat eating. Now if there was a famine and the only food available was beef, would you say a judge should be able to pick up on that and set the penalty appropriately? Or should he simply follow the letter of the law and ignore that following the law would have meant certain death for the defendant and his family? I don't think justice would mean ignoring the law altogether, but it also doesn't mean that if the sentance is death, that the full penalty is justice either. This is why we have judges.

ShunNakamura. two bombing attempts when the bomb was left for a longer period of time would be the attempt to kill margaret thatcher in her hotel. and the attempt to kill diana and charles in a theatre.

"So all selfdefense is flawed?" self defence is not carried out pre-emptively. after a gun or knife is drawn you are not acting pre-emptively. if he looks at you funny and you view this as a threat and make the first move. that is pre-emptive and flawed.

i think the torture used in abu gharib caused huge emotional and physical torment to the people. guantanamo's entire purpose is emotional break down. an entire camp made to degrade the human spirit. rape of the mind. of course rape is used as a form of torture as well. documented cases also occoured in abu gharib. uday hussein also had a nasty habit of it.

the pain induced by torture can be of the highest kind. almost unexplainable. and it's sustained. it's not one kick, one punch, it's days with reeds under your nails, water torture for hours on end, burns, sodomy, stress positions, sleep depravation, extreme temperatures, humuiliation, it's dislocated shoulders, it's broken fingers, it's the worst pain you can imagine. and it lasts. medeival torture is worse.

the law (and a law which people are being tried under this very second) a law that works, states without a shadow of a doubt. no justifiable reason. there will be no excuse. when you stand up in the hague they do not need a reason. just what you did. and you will be sentenced for the crime. the reason is not important. there is none.

and burma has a very bloody history before modern time. but the point is void as i confused myanmar with malaya. malayasia is where the british hearts and minds campaign took place. it has a bloody history since british invasion.

no stat would oulaw meat eating. it is not judged immoral. it would be a ridicolous law. laws are based on morality.

the law is pretty clear on the matter. no matter what the circumstances anyman who commits torture is guilty of one of the worst crimes.

and one thing that worries me is the new american definition of torture. you have to cause serious organ damage to count. so burning is fine, beatings are fine, broken limbs are fine, electrocution is fine, acid is fine, drowning (but not to death) is fine. the current nasty trick in guantanamo with the hunger strokers is fine. even most medeival tortures such as the rack would be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

ShunNakamura. two bombing attempts when the bomb was left for a longer period of time would be the attempt to kill margaret thatcher in her hotel. and the attempt to kill diana and charles in a theatre.

---

Right.. All I was trying to get accross was that there are times, when it is reasonable to let a bomb sit for a long time. I figured even If I couldn't come up with one someone else would come up with a made up or historical example. Even if rare it does exist. And should be prepared for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"So all selfdefense is flawed?" self defence is not carried out pre-emptively. after a gun or knife is drawn you are not acting pre-emptively. if he looks at you funny and you view this as a threat and make the first move. that is pre-emptive and flawed.

---

The guy still has not caused you any harm.. and may not even be threatening you if he just drew it. Thus it is still pre-emptive. Until the action is carried out the defense against that action is pre-emptive. For all you know he could have pulled the gun to shoot a grizzly that had quitely snuck up behind you... so you kill him for trying to protect you? He pulled his gun and pointed it towards you afterall.

Selfdefense is quite pre-emptive. It isn't years in pre-emption, rather a much shorter time, but pre-emptive none-the-less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i think the torture used in abu gharib caused huge emotional and physical torment to the people. guantanamo's entire purpose is emotional break down. an entire camp made to degrade the human spirit. rape of the mind. of course rape is used as a form of torture as well. documented cases also occoured in abu gharib. uday hussein also had a nasty habit of it.

---

Well I would have to have a list of said emotion torture. Many of them I am sure is a seperate crime such as rape. Rape is Rape and should be tried so. Though the punishment may lessen depending on the circumstances. There are a few highly unlikely scenarios where I could see somewhat of a pardon being released(highly unlikely? More like so unlikely that the sun will die before it happens, or not).

And breaking a humans spirit isn't always permanent. There are probably ways to make sure it isn't so. I don't care if it is broken as long as it is fixed to be at least mostly the way it was before. The few Rape victims I have met have never recovered or even recovered to be anything resembling what they were before. Maybe I have only seen the extreme cases... but I imagine I would end up the same way... so that is just how I view it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the pain induced by torture can be of the highest kind. almost unexplainable. and it's sustained. it's not one kick, one punch, it's days with reeds under your nails, water torture for hours on end, burns, sodomy, stress positions, sleep depravation, extreme temperatures, humuiliation, it's dislocated shoulders, it's broken fingers, it's the worst pain you can imagine. and it lasts. medeival torture is worse.

---

I will address each type that I know about seperately.

Quote:

---

it's days with reeds under your nails

---

Hmm.. I may actually test what that feels like. I have afterall had junk consistently being shoved underneth my nails after I had hurt my hand, until said things managed to pull the nail out by the root(nail 'roots' were an interesting thing to look at considering I had never seen one before..). Amazing what can manage to slide under when your nails have suffered enough damage that they were partiually forced up. May be interesting to see how different it is from what I experienced. But unless it is several million times more painful I wouldn't consider it unbearable by any stretch.

Oh yes I also doubt this would cause long term permanent damage. Though I am unsure what days of having it under your nails would cause. Probably would have to have the nail pulled. The reed could cause it to grow in a bad way.. so may have to start from scratch. But it should grow in fine so no permanent damage would likely result.

Quote:

---

water torture for hours on end

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

Main Entry: water torture
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a type of physical torture involving the incessant dripping of water on the forehead of an immobilized victim

---

Guh... that sounds annoying as hell, but not neccesarily unbearable.

Quote:

---

burns

---

Painful, but after having my fair share of them I don't think it is any where near unbearable or emotionally scaring. Though I personally wouldn't condone this as a type of torture due to the fact that severe burns can cuase permanent damage or even death, I guess it is alright if heavily monitored and regulated.

Quote:

---

sodomy

---

First one that has any form of emotional strings that I see. And this would already be under the category of rape, and I think I have already discussed that using a crime to commit torture means you still have commited that crime. Though the crime should always be viewed with circumstance in mind.

Quote:

---

stress positions

---

I know little on this and the word isn't in the dictionary or any substantial readings I have. I may have to look it up.. but at the moment I do not want to spend too much time on such.. gotta practice and teach mom what a back button and a web browser is :P

Quote:

---

Sleep Depravation

---

This could cause some permanent harm.. and as such would have to be carefully monitored and regulated to make sure it didn't break the fine line between temp discomfort and long lasting/everlasting damage.

Quote:

---

Extreme Temperatures

---

As long as it is only temp discmofort no big deal. I can even deal with extremes for a good while. Such as being out in below 0 weather with only a shirt and pants for quite awhile. Lucky I didn't get frostbite is what I was told. Anyways, a simple meditation trick and can fool the discomfort away. I used to do it alot until I wised up and got myself a big heavy coat. Extreme heat I am less sure of. How high is extreme? But once again. A few meditation tricks could aid resistance during the time you can apply such temps without causing longlasting damage.

Quote:

---

humuiliation

---

Too broad. Some types should be outlawed due to the extensive permanent spiritual damage it would cuase(such as rape) and others can easily be shaken off as only a stab at one's pride etc.. way too braod for an easy discussion thereof.

Quote:

---

it's dislocated shoulders, it's broken fingers,

---

Because I am tired of typing and that these two are similar I will take these as one. Busted fingers. Big whoop. I have seen more guys then I count with busted fingers. I have seen someone get a broken finger then get back out on the mat insisting he was fine. Doctor and ref didn't let him continue though.

I have seen guys wrestle with broken ribs, busted up arms, legs, knees, toes, and have been in similar situations myself.. though nothing broke.. by some miracle.. still not sure how twisting my right shoulder blade so that it nearly touches my left(just past the middle point of my back.. I think that is close enoug hto qualify as nearly touching my left) didn't break my right are.. or at least dislocate my shoulder. Guess I it just wasn't my time to suffer a busted shoulder.

Anyways due to that, my only real comments that are plausible on broken bones is from what I have observed others doing and resisting.. and quite frankly few people I know suffer longterm/permanent spiritual damage from a broken bone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

it's the worst pain you can imagine. and it lasts. medeival torture is worse.

---

None of what you listed(except sodomy) is anywhere near what I would call the worst I can imagine. I have dealt with many similar circumstances(many that I haven't listed.. recently isn't the only time things have gotten rammed under and stuck under my nails) and been completely uneffected. So how is it unbearable and the like? I would imagine similar situations would at least hint at the pain of the one it is similar to... and I am not seeing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

the law (and a law which people are being tried under this very second) a law that works, states without a shadow of a doubt. no justifiable reason. there will be no excuse. when you stand up in the hague they do not need a reason. just what you did. and you will be sentenced for the crime. the reason is not important. there is none.

...............................................................................................[the dots mean I left out more then so many lines. incase you you were wondering. May as well stay in practice for my english course.]

the law is pretty clear on the matter. no matter what the circumstances anyman who commits torture is guilty of one of the worst crimes.

---

Any law that does not allow for circumstance to play apart is injust and immoral and thus void. It shouldn't be there to begin with. Once again I state the world is not black and white.. we do have color. Even if in our lifetimes we never see or think of one instance that could be justified or justifiable, that does not mean there isn't one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

no stat would oulaw meat eating. it is not judged immoral. it would be a ridicolous law. laws are based on morality.

---

I wouldn't bet on that. The vegetarian movement in some areas is down right strong. And vegetarians that I have talked to feel it is immoral to eat animals.. thus it would be based on morality. So don't bet that such a state will never exist. It may not.. but there is the possibility that it may.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and one thing that worries me is the new american definition of torture. you have to cause serious organ damage to count. so burning is fine, beatings are fine, broken limbs are fine, electrocution is fine, acid is fine, drowning (but not to death) is fine. the current nasty trick in guantanamo with the hunger strokers is fine. even most medeival tortures such as the rack would be fine.

---

Well I don't know if I would aggree with all of them. Serious organ damage isn't the only kind of longterm/everlasting damage.

Quote:

---

pre emptive strikes have a habit of being flawed. like the pre-emptive iraq war. pre emptive movement leads to mistake as it is based only on intelligence.

---

Ahem. Ever heard of the Six Day War? Look it up. Or, I can do it for you. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

It's pretty accurate, as I am familiar with the facts concerning that war. It's also not pro-Israeli or anything, nor pro-Arab. Makes for a good, informative read.

in law and certainly in warfare preparation for attack is enough for self defence.

"Rape is Rape and should be tried so. Though the punishment may lessen depending on the circumstances." is there any circumstance where you would justify rape?

"The few Rape victims I have met have never recovered or even recovered to be anything resembling what they were before" this is fairly typical. and breaking of human spirit no matter what way tends to have the same lasting effects.

what we are doing with torture is having someone totally under our control. and using that control on a defenceless human being to degrade and injure him.


reeds are used because they split when inserted and a re greatly painful. it is also known to be donw to the genitals as well. it is supposed to be one of the most painful of the easy tortures (without physical effort or other equipment).

water torture makes you go insane. it deprives of sleep. it results in hallucinations. the idea is that you cannot focus on anything else. it's something you cannoy avoid. and it persists for hours or days. another variation on water torture is faking drowning or by placing a rag over the mouth and dripping it with water so the victim gets the same effect of drowning.

phosphor was used to burn inmates in quantanamo. it is extremely painful. also our uzbek from before suffered torture from burning. he also suffered smash knees. was his torture justified?

shun. if you can find me a plausible circumstance for allowing rape i will be shocked.

stress positions are holding the body in certain positions for long periods of time so that they become very painful. forced standing with any movement also accomplishes this effect. the tick method is quite common. place a stick on your shoulders and behind and place your hands on top. it will gradually become very painful. to speed it up lean forward so a door frame holds the stick in place while you lean forward.

the british tactic was to have prisoners leaning against a wall on their finger tips. it's all part of breaking the personally both mentally and physically.

a photo of a variation used in egypt. http://www.endtorture.org/chn/torture_method_egypt.jpg
notice in this version how he is hanging. not technically stress position as he is not holding himself up. the little ease in the tower of london is another variation.

a common picture of a stress positiion is from abu gharib

http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/image...s_position.jpg

notice how if he moves he will fall but still be chained by his ankle to the door handle. leaving him hanging. the famous electrocution picture is also a stress position. see how he is having trouble standing.

it maybe soft torture. but it hurts. and is an abuse.

extreme temperatures and sleep depravation are used in conjunction with the above. it's about making the person suffer mentally and physically.

humiliation is broad. the types america uses can be seen in the abu gharib pictures. and to save me constantly posting them i will just post a page with a good collection.

http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/archi...aib_photos.htm

i will reference the ones from there. in particular humiliating ones being the ones with stacks of naked people. the ones forced to replicate oral sex. the one with the naked man with his arms outstretched that appears to be covered in crap. the two near the bottom of the naked men chained up one with underwear on his head. notice also the way that ones arms and back are bent. that is a stress position that will be extremely painful soon.

it depends on the method of bone breaking. and it's all about power. if you are chained up. defenceless and a guard comes in and kicks you in the ribs and breaks a few. or if he jumps on your leg. whacks your arms with hammers. the rack is particularly nasty. thumscrews as well. and do we think that our prisoners will receieve casts and medical treatment. one british prisoner of guantanamo who was released now suffers from severe epilepsy. his skull was broken by a prison guard. it was never seen to.

medevial torture is quite horrible. things like the wheel (where you break a person limbs so they are wrapped around the spokes) and various other implements i wouldn't be very fond off.

and feel a bit for our other uzbek friend boiled to death. and the popular friend of the copper wire. electrocuting your victims. not very pleasant to say the least.

it's not just the torture. though horrific it may be. that is not the only crime. it is an abuse of power. taking a defenceless man and hurting him to extreme levels. breaking him in everyway. reducing any hope he has. making him feel degrees of pain that are unbearable.

you see shun. unbearable is the word. you say that you know people in similar situations. but torture needs to be unbearable. if it is bearable it will not work as torture. you wouldn't submit to something you can bear. it needs to mentally and physically unbearable. it is that is so evil. putting someone from unbearable pain.

and it's about degradation. making these people less than human. treating them lower than animals. having them at your every will and using that to put them below everything else. degrading them so far that you can perform this. a dehumanisation process

and that is very intersting. it is how the nazis started. degradaing and dehumanising people. and that is why we see such crimes. and it's not just soldiers. it's in public live "it's just anothet terrorist who gives a crap" "just another towelhead" it's everywhere. and that is why it is possible. and it is not a cause of the torture movement. it is also part of it.

it's part of the emotional side. feeling less than human. being treated worse than you would terat another animal. feeling scared, terrified, humiliated. being abused daily, not to be let to sleep. having every bit of hope and humanity stripped from you. blow by blow, night by night, day by day, insult by insult, every bit of pain you will endure.

and at one point you will give in. just to make it stop. you will say what it takes. truth or lie. and that is also why it is wrong. it doesn't give correct answers.

and that is why the law is so strict on it. it's a failure of everything. just a succes of human depravity.

Quote:

---

preparation for attack is enough for self defence.

---

That may have been true hundreds and thousands of years ago. Today's warfare is swift - it's about whoever strikes first. There's so much fire-power and mobility involved, that the consequences of an attack are far to severe for the attacked side to retaliate effecitvely, after it has been attacked.

Modern armies strike hard and deep, and that's while not even taking un-conventional warfare into account. If counter-measures are not taken (i.e, attack your enemy BEFORE it attacks you), you're done for, kaput, finished.

Gone are the days of walls, fortresses and purely defensive strategy and tactics. Today's battlefield changes from second to second, and each side has to be ready, lest it be annihiliated.

Attack is the best defense. That is, if you can't run. :D

stress positions look annoying. Though a couple of them look like some of the wrestling exercises we have done... though those only last minutes generally. So I know that would end up being .. painful ... though how I am not sure.

Right spliting... that sounds kinda ouchy... and I know many would definately not be able to put up with it. Though I also know some who could.
Oh yeah.. the spliting.. I wonder... that may actually be able to cause some long lasting damage, though I have no clue.

The 'other' variation on Water torture was what I thought it was before I looked it up. The fake drowning I do not really aggree with. It would likely be too easy to actually drown them or cause other injuries(perhaps permanent) due to water in the lung.

I did mention that burning sounded... a bit on the extreme side. As for smashed knees.. I know that you may never truely recover from that so I am of course against that.(a teacher of mine broke a knee cap once years upon years ago.. and she still can't walk quite right even with all the thearpy and stuff she went through).

Quote:

---

shun. if you can find me a plausible circumstance for allowing rape i will be shocked.

---

I will have to do some thinking to find one that is both plausable to happen and plausable to allow. If you just want one that I seriousally doubt will ever happen but in which I would consider it justified/allowable(make him do something constructive for the one he hurt if you want), is:

Lets say this is a comic book world. With a comic book villian, but with a twisted villian. This villian has planted a nuclear bomb somewhere near the center of the planet and will detonate it, unless an unfortunate man that he selected rapes an unfortunate women he selected. Lets say there is no other possible way to stop him. And lets say by some miracle we know he is telling the truth and will give up afterwards(not likely.. but I am just splewing a perfect scenario.. weaken the confictions and dangers somewhat and you might get something that might happen once in a million years, though it would also weaken the ability for it to be justified.. though I think it would be possible for it justifiable in this world... it is so unlikely that I would bet against it happening(and I aint' a betting man)).

The question here is this. Should the man rape the women, thus, saving the lives of billions for the price of one? Or should he hold out and cause the destruction of everything by a madman? Quite frankly I think they should save the whole world. It sucks and it is awful but quite justifiable.

Now as I said if you lower it somewhat to try to bring it to this world it would be more like, a bomb is set in a populated building(say several thousand at stake at least). The police squad can't get there in time and the guy who has the bomb has said he will deactivate it if a certian man rapes a certian lady(keep in mind the lady would be unaware of such a deal... if she willing submits it isn't exactly rape(since rape is against thier will)). Now he can't be sure the madman will keep his promise.. but it is certian that if he doesn't the bomb will go boom and kill or at least harm everyone there. Now what should he do? Lets just assume for scenario sake(since I can't think of every plausable scenario) that there is no other way to stop him in time. So what is it, the lives of thousands.. for one? Or have them all die, including the lady? Recovery from Rape is pausable... but recovery from being blown into itty bitty pieces is even tougher to my knowledge.


All unlikely but the second could possibly happen once in a million or so years.

Not that I am saying we should go around raping people or anything.. just that in a blue moon somthing may come up in which there is NO better option. That is how I view torture. There are likely at least some scenarios where it is justifiable and perhaps quite appropriate. It shouldn't be used as a catch all, rather as a last resort... and it should be done with vengence or menece... but care. In other words try to do as little long lasting harm as possible.

As for the naked men being put in those positions-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

rape1 Audio pronunciation of "rape" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rp)
n.

1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse

---

that is still rape though the rapist are not involved. So it should still be treated as such. I fail to see the reasoning in that. Though if someone can explain the reason.. the should feel free to do so.. I am somewhat prejudiced against rape, and thus may not see reasons when there are reasons. You should not let self-rightouesness and anger over ride ones logical sense.


Edit- for two reasons

A)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by war angel

Attack is the best defense. That is, if you can't run.

---

Quite true, A good offense is a good defense. Though it is also true a good defense can be a good offense. But it is much more difficult to pull that off from what I have read and seen.

B) In the example above it could be argued that the guy didn't rape the women, rather the criminal raped them both... however, I know many people who would consider both as criminal.

so if pre-emptivity is okay why don't we just nuke north korea now? or france cos you know given 100 years things might be different. lets not take the chance. and the pesky south africands might do something in the next 50 years. they deserve a hammering too.

yeah pre-emptivity. otherwise known as aggression. and first strike capaabilty became obselete with MAD.

yes but you aren't in wrestling exercises for days and hours. experiment yourself. the short stick method against the door frame and leaning against a wall with your fingertips for a while. then imagine doing it without sleep. with white noise, or insults played constantly (the current one in use is "subhuman" repeated).

so is rape a good form of torture? is it acceptable except in a comic book scenario? there are other better methods. like the rack......

a note just to add to the image. one of the sexual attacks in abu gharib was performed with a chemical light being entered into a man's anus. it broke. find a justification.

and i would like to see how rape is performed with menace. find me anyone who has been pleasantly raped.

the reason for the sex acts is dehumanisation.

and there lies the problem. can we continue dehumanising people? continue with rape and torture and then try to find reasons why it is right? try to conclude on a comic book scenario on why it might be okay? that applies to the ticking bomb scenario as well. they are extremely rare and wouldn't exist in a guerrilla war environment like iraq anyway.

torture is the best way of getting people killed. it's not an offensive or defensive move. it's the best way to get people killed while destroying others.

We are not (most of us) defending Abu Graihb, or any other U.S. actions, just pointing out that in some, specific circumstances, torture might be the lesser of two evils. That is a far cry from what happened at that prison.

abu gahrib is official american policy. it does not breach any of their new rules. it is the new america.

At the very least equate something to the other and just don't flat out exaggerate it to the point of lying like you are. Abu Gahrib is not offical American Policy.

No-body's saying torture is nice, sweet and frolicky. It's not. That's the whole point - torture is a terrible practice and has a terrible cost. It is, however, necessary in certain cases, which I and others have mentioned before.

I think this debate is really over. I think saving lives is more important than doubtable moral values and international law, and Cloud Number Nine thinks the two latters are above human life. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because this is too fundamental to compromise on.

Thank you DarkLadyNyara. Anyways to go further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

so if pre-emptivity is okay why don't we just nuke north korea now? or france cos you know given 100 years things might be different. lets not take the chance. and the pesky south africands might do something in the next 50 years. they deserve a hammering too.

---

What is the percent chance. How eminent is it? How likely is it to resolve though other means. And the catch all phrase for these questions and all other is the word 'reasonable'. Selfdefense and what is acceptable as such changes with time due to what that time sees as reasonable.

And anyways nuking is likely to rarely be reasonable. You do realize how much damage those cause? We would damage our freinds the japenese(in the case of korea others in the cases of other nations). We would harm our own enviroment and we could possibly put the planet in a downward spiral that would lead to the end of us all(depending on the number of nukes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

yeah pre-emptivity. otherwise known as aggression. and first strike capaabilty became obselete with MAD.

---

Not exactly... you see it makes it more important to stirke before your enemy can unlease such weapons. If your enemy doesn't exist to use the weapons they won't be there. Making prediction and pre-emption more important in a war. Of course avoiding war altogether is the safest option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

yes but you aren't in wrestling exercises for days and hours. experiment yourself. the short stick method against the door frame and leaning against a wall with your fingertips for a while. then imagine doing it without sleep. with white noise, or insults played constantly (the current one in use is "subhuman" repeated).

---

A good number of hours each day. And more when we are getting ready for a meet. Here in Ohio, or at least at my school, the coaches take it seriousally. In practice if you pass out that is a good thing.. you are supposed to push yourself that hard. Asthma attack? Good job, good way to push yourself. Etc... The coach once told us "Wrestling isn't a game, it isn't a sport, it is torture". Torture of course is any from of large phsycial and mental pain. Wrestlers do put themselves through alot. No it isn't torture to the extreme, but it ain't anything nice.

I got a little story for you. A wrestling mate of mine(152 I was 130 and he was my wrestling partner.. I needed to be broke off my strong arm tactic.. and this guy was having trouble when his opponent was faster then him(which I was)) went and joined the military... this was before 9/11 and afghanistan. He called back and told us that if we ever needed any easy money to go join the military. Why we asked? The place is easier then a day of wrestling practice. Talk about a breeze. Etc.

He may have been blowing smoke for all I know. But this isn't the only such instance where I have been told that our practices(other schools in our area generally do more drills rather then phsyical exercises.. so physically we are tougher. we have reasons for that) are tougher then Military training(the only difference being military training lasts longer). Whereas basket ball players that I know that have joined come back and say it is rough. But then again the basket ball players here think our practices are insane as well.

Now why I say this is this; many of the forms you mention bring phsyical discomfort through things that we wrestlers do much of the time. Thus the stuff is definately bearable if you have any form of pain tolerance. Some of those guys with busted limbs I told you about? They would break them in one match and go back out the same match to finish what was started. And some of those bones were broke wiht menace(so they didn't get to wrestle since the other guy was disqualified). One dude who whined about the pain of having a broken bone... he lost all the respect from his team mates. Why? Pain like that is quite endurable. Enough on this. I just think you play that stuff up a bit much, it hurts yes, but it is far from unbearable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

so is rape a good form of torture? is it acceptable except in a comic book scenario? there are other better methods. like the rack......

a note just to add to the image. one of the sexual attacks in abu gharib was performed with a chemical light being entered into a man's anus. it broke. find a justification.

---

The second way I posted it wasn't entirely comic book quality. The only real thing I am having trouble finding is a likely motive for the criminal to want to force someone to rape another. only thing I can think of is to try and get they guy jailed. But the moment the truth came out, the sentence would be lessened or perhaps removed entirely, I am sure. Thus to me that doesn't make much sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and i would like to see how rape is performed with menace. find me anyone who has been pleasantly raped.

---

Menace... I sorta misused it there compared to the dictionary meaning. Was bound to happen sooner or later, I don't look up every word I write. I was likely meaing it in a sense of its Synonyms. Basically the words that should have been there are tormenting, terrorizing etc.. And remember I am talking about on the actors part(how they feel) not how the victim percieves them. But I do appoligise about the word usage. I should defeinately watch myself about that.


As a last. It is generally better to regulate and control something then to outright ban it(though I guess you can think of banning as the ultimate regulation and control, I am using it in the way it is used when refering to drugs, which means legalize it but put restrictions on it). that in my opinion is how almost all laws should be. Such as say "Torture, being that it many times deprives of humanity should be avoided at all costs, and can be punishable by the highest form of law" or some such. Say you shouldn't do it. Say it can be punished. The rest of the law would state words like 'reasonable' and the such. Giving it flexiblity. Any unflexable law is inherently flawed, unjust, and immoral. The world isn't black and white, we do have the wonderful colors.

abu gharib is american policy. if it isn't why legalise torture to the degree used there?

when i said nuking i meant it kind of metaphorically like destroy.

the theory of mad ruined pre-emptive capabilities. it meant you could wipe out the entire country and the nukes would still keep firing. once the red button is hit MAD is in place. that was the great threat of the cold war. total annihilation of both sides. they both had enough nukes to wipe each other out many times over and had the capability to keep doing it without human command. that was the great fear.

and can be rape be done without torment or terrorizing either? it's not like it's there to cause physical pain (unless you are breaking a glass light in someone). it is there purely to torment and terrorize. and for perverse pleasure of course. otherwise it's just sex.

torture is there to torment and terrorize.

and as someone who used to do judo i know alot about physical pain. a story i will tell for you know is the one that is the reason i now longer do judo. it was the semi finals of the junior scottish championships. and i was in a wrist lock. i broke it unwisely and also broke my wrist. i then went on to complete the match. i with deep regret now went to play the final (i know my wrist was damaged to some extent). i rushed to finish the match and ended it one throw. the throw twisted my wrist and the part of bone closest to my wrist turned. it was the most painful thing i had ever felt. the bone rubbed as it turned. i was told never to participate again. i also have a problem with can openers (lost grip strength) but that is unimportant.

that was justa little story to say i understand about pain. i know how far it can go and when enough is enough.

you say torture can be bearable. is bearable torture a reality? what would bearable torture acheive? if it was bearable why submit. torture by it's very nature has to be unbearable. and that means unbearable levels of suffering.

that is the single requirement of torture. suffering. it's first goal is to make a person to suffer til the can take no more. to make it unbearable.

bearable torture would be an oxymoron. much like the intelligence of people that use it.

They are not legislating torture. Also those people at that prision where punished. You fail...again.

actually they already have. the definition of torture in america was changed to only take into account serious long term physical damage such as maiming, organ failure and death. new law, new legislation. america also has pulled out of the international couirt system

yes they were. i don't believe for what they did. but because they were found out by the media. they were not tried as criminals but as soldiers. it was not done by the hague it was by a military court. it was leniant and half hearted.

telling me i fail smacks of arrogance.

Cloud, let's talk. Just between us boys, you dig.

You fancy yourself as a champion of whatever-the-smurf and think that our disagreeing with you is just proof of how wonderful you are. But notice how everyone is disagreeing with you - even those who agree with you, if you catch my drift. If you want to have people listen to you, save the best for last: if you want us to call America "US Reich" (lolz) then please at least lead up to it. I know, I know, a retarded monkey can see the lack of similiarities, but first convince us. It doesn't come off as poetic; it comes off at best as incorrect or at worst offensive. (Not because we love America no matter what, but because we recognize that National Socialism is not the same as a really crappy psuedo-capitalist-socialist state).

Now. I made this topic, remember? I dislike some of the ideas you're postulating. "Anti-Torture Amendment; Bush disapproves" - I wrote those words. It's horrible, and a smack against human rights. Rather than use it as your hypothesis that America is trying to take over the world and likes suffering, or blame America for not following "international law" (which is a laughable concept), why don't you just explain why you think its wrong? Without using the language. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

actually they already have. the definition of torture in america was changed to only take into account serious long term physical damage such as maiming, organ failure and death. new law, new legislation. america also has pulled out of the international couirt system

yes they were. i don't believe for what they did. but because they were found out by the media. they were not tried as criminals but as soldiers. it was not done by the hague it was by a military court. it was leniant and half hearted.

telling me i fail smacks of arrogance.

---

They're in the American Millitary. They should face American Millitary Court Martial. And they were criminal defendants not "soldiers" during their trials. And most of the people involved were sentaced to prison

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Specialist Charles Graner was found guilty on January 14, 2005 of all charges, including conspiracy to maltreat detainees, failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty, and maltreatment, as well as charges of assault, indecency, adultery, and obstruction of justice. On January 15, 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in federal prison.

Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick pled guilty on October 20, 2004 to conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault and committing an indecent act in exchange for other charges being dropped. His abuses included making three prisoners masturbate. He also punched one prisoner so hard in the chest that he needed resuscitation. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank to private.

Jeremy Sivits was sentenced on May 19, 2004 by a special court-martial (less severe than "general"; confinement sentence limited to one year) to the maximum one-year sentence, in addition to being discharged for bad conduct and demoted, upon his plea of guilty.
Specialist Armin Cruz of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion was sentenced on September 11, 2004 to eight months confinement, reduction in rank to private and a bad conduct discharge in exchange for his testimony against other soldiers.[21]

Sabrina Harman was sentenced on May 17, 2005 to six months in prison and a bad conduct discharge after being convicted on six of the seven counts. She had faced a maximum sentence of 5 years.
Megan Ambuhl was convicted on October 30, 2004, of dereliction of duty and sentenced to reduction in rank to private and loss of a half-month’s pay.

Lynndie England was convicted on September 26, 2005, of one count of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating detainees and one count of committing an indecent act. She was acquitted on a second conspiracy count. England had faced a maximum sentence of ten years, but was sentenced on September 27, 2005, to just 3 years. She received a dishonorable discharge.

Spec. Roman Krol, and Spec. Israel Rivera, who were present during abuse on October 25, are under investigation but have not been charged and have testified against other soldiers.

---

So the millitary court martials are working. Maybe not perfectly, but they are working.

Any member of the armed forces is tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, no matter what the crime. And the UCMJ is much more strict than any other American law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

actually they already have. the definition of torture in america was changed to only take into account serious long term physical damage such as maiming, organ failure and death. new law, new legislation. america also has pulled out of the international couirt system

yes they were. i don't believe for what they did. but because they were found out by the media. they were not tried as criminals but as soldiers. it was not done by the hague it was by a military court. it was leniant and half hearted.

telling me i fail smacks of arrogance.

---

I would rather face the American law than any sort of military tribunal. As for nothing would have happened if the media didn't find out about it...you are probably right. Is it wrong? Yes. Is anyone here going to argue otherwise? I hope not.

As for the definition of torture being redefined...that was not legislation. That is the doing of the Department of Justice. That was not a law that was passed, hence it wasn't legislated.

What does pulling out of the international court system have to do with anything?

Finally, yes, telling you that you fail does smack of arrogance but since when has me being arrogant been news to ANYONE?!?!...also you have re-failed :D

Quote:

---

You fancy yourself as a champion of whatever-the-smurf and think that our disagreeing with you is just proof of how wonderful you are. But notice how everyone is disagreeing with you - even those who agree with you, if you catch my drift. If you want to have people listen to you, save the best for last: if you want us to call America "US Reich" (lolz) then please at least lead up to it. I know, I know, a retarded monkey can see the lack of similiarities, but first convince us. It doesn't come off as poetic; it comes off at best as incorrect or at worst offensive. (Not because we love America no matter what, but because we recognize that National Socialism is not the same as a really crappy psuedo-capitalist-socialist state).

---

Exactly. Cloud, you have some valid points, but you tend to make them in a way that pisses people off. Are some American policies screwed up? Well, yes, but that doesn't make the Bush administration the Fourth Reich. Ditch the rhetoric. It just makes you look bad.

Quote:

---

I would rather face the American law than any sort of military tribunal.

---

You and me both. Soldiers are generally held to higher standards.

the only comparison i made to nazi germany in this thread was to do with mengel. mengel was used solely for one reason. famous torturers are rare. he happens to be on famous person who is also guilty of crimes. pol pot, stalin and the like did not take part in torture. the only other person i can think of off the top of my head is uday hussein.

and this is not about america wanting to take over the world. it's about the dehumanising the army commits. and it's not a one off. it's not a sign off the times. it is a constant. but it is not limited to them. but as the supposed world leader. they should be leading. not going back to the middle ages.

and am i to take dig as an insult? (someone please clarify)

military tribunials only try the military. and they were not civillians until they were discharged (done after the trial).

and the court martials convicted yes. but were leniant. you can get more for robbery. 10 years was the maximum sentence. and for what? murder, attempted murder, indecent assualt, rape, sexual assualt, and of course torure. 10 years? it was a joke and white wash.

"Any member of the armed forces is tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, no matter what the crime. And the UCMJ is much more strict than any other American law" they should have never been tried under american law or a military trial. it should have been in the war crimes court. it was a war crime and should have been tried as such.

what do we call the move america made on torture then? a re-classification? a re-writing of the law?

pulling out of the court system is explained above. lindy england and her kind should have been tried in the same dock as milosevic. under international law for war crimes. not a military crime. they are no better than any other war criminal and should have been tried accordingly.

pulling out of the international courts also means american troops don't have to answer to international law.

Now I see where you are coming from on the international court angle. I agree and disagree with it. I would actually have to know something about war crimes other than you get charged with it when you do unmoral acts and lose the war(at least that is how history has worked). So I leave it at that.

As for the redefining of the 'law' as you put it. As far as I know there is no 'law' that defines torture. We have ratified some international treaty appearantly though which makes that law by default. Here is what my research shows.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment...4_leavitt.html

'It's important to note here that the U.S. - as well as all other liberal democracies -- are signatories to the Torture Convention, and that under the Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate are U.S. law, just like statutes and Supreme Court decisions. So claiming the U.S. has the right to differ from this definition is simply untenable.

Here is the Torture Convention's definition of "torture": "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."'

That is a pretty broad definition to me. I would like to see it narrowed and made more sepecific about what severe pain and suffering really is as that is subjective.

If anyone has information to the contray please elaborate and tell me I am wrong because I have not been able to find said information on my own.

in 2002 the justice department gave a memo that defined torture purely as "intentionally causing permanent damage to vital organs or permanent emotional trauma" and "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death"

now the hague. the hague is where the internationalc court of justice, and international crimanal court are. they are the modern equivalent of nuremburg. when a person commits an international crime, war crime or a crime of great severity(genocide) they are tried in the international courts. as national law just isn't big enough to try an international criminal. it can also be used against countries as a whole. it's creation and power was by the UN.

what used to happen before is that everytime i war crime was committed like in yugoslavia and rwanda a whole new court would be set up. the ICC is permanant. there are 4 ways you can end up there.

"A country member of the Assembly of States Parties (ratified the Court's Statute) sends the case;
A country that has chosen to accept the ICC's jurisdiction sends the case;
The Security Council sends the case (subject to veto from the permanent five members); or
The three-judge panel authorizes a case initiated by the ICC Prosecutor. "

the us had signed up to it. bush then binned it. but as they are signed up to it the us gets a say and continues to bitch. but they have not ratified it. clever monkeys.

the us is scared it's politicians or soliders could be tried by it. but it's real power comes into extradition.

the us has since tried eveything in it's power to sabotage the ICC. if anymore information is needed ed i will give it. but it seems off topic.

This is were it really gets tricky with law and what not. I have read that memo before and I know what it says. As I said above the law about what consitutes torture is vague. The words severe is open to interrpetation. What constitutes severe? The DOJ decided that with the memo. I do not agree with it but I would say legally it isn't outside the bounds of the initial law and it tough to argue either way.

Severe is essentially equated to the words 'A lot'. What is a lot? It needs to be better defined so there is less wiggle room by countries.

Thank you for better explaining the international court to me. I don't agree with the idea of a international court yet. It is a good idea in principal but I think it can still lead to bias and many problems when you look at how different legal systems work.

I have seen THE RUMPOLE OF THE BAILEY on Public Broadcasting Station(PBS) and it looks very different from how our legal system works over here. There is a lot the same but also things work very differently. I think the idea of an international court still needs to be given more thought but before a court really comes into play I think there still needs to be some sort of enforcement agency(this goes back to the uselessness of the UN in be able to enforce anything).

I will do my own research. What always bothers me is that you are so smart and probably smarter than me but I think you let your bias get in the way too much sometimes. And yes I am one arrogant bastard XD

while i was browsing around recently i found a very interesting quote on abu gharib that i never found the space to use. while this thread has quitened down i will use it. it is a great highlight into what abu gharib and more generally torture is about. it is also sickening when it comes down to how far dehumanisation has got.

it comes from a radio host called rush limbaugh.

"This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people. You ever Madonna, or Britney Spears do on stage. Maybe I'm -- yeah, and get an NEA grant for something like this."

thoughts?

XD You apparantly do not know who Rush is. He runs a 'saterical'(or so they say :shifty: ) conservative radio show where he talks for 3 hours about how the liberals are ruining society.

I think 98.32432543624363245% of whatever Rush says is complete bull. I don't even care to read what ever he said because it is all for controversy and ratings.

Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is what I would call the conservative Michael Moore. Not that he doesn't make a good point or two here and there, but it's all masked in bitchiness and name-calling, so no one cares.

Quote Bill Maher, if you're going to quote a comedian-esque guy who talks about politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

Not that he doesn't make a good point or two here and there

---

That is what the other 1.678% is for XD

but what of the actual quote?

There is some truth in there. They were not doing it to torture the people. That just happens to be a side effect of what they did. I think jail was too harsh for a military that is having trouble meeting recruitment requirements. Makes people not want to join out of fear they may make a mistake and get jailed for it.

I don't know what he was talking about when he gets to the brittney stuff. I think we need more of what was said before and after the quote to get to know what he said a bit better.

no jail for murderers and rapists? who did it for nothing else other than enjoyment.

it was not a mistake. can we honestly make excuses for a bunch of dumbass redneck torturers. rapists and murderers? they knew exactly what they were doing.

the thing about britney is about being paid for doing something you enjoy. like singing. or sexually assualting another man with a chemical light. whatever floats your boat.

It has been a year since that incident and I didn't follow it. If they did in fact rape people and kill them then they got what they deserved. I don't recall that happening though. The glow stick thing sounds like a solid 6 months though.

DOUBLE POSTED!

I actually found a time line online of when your quote was said(I was curious about the rape and killings) and found out that the quote was said when there were just those 12 photos and any knowing of rape, death and even the glow rod were still yet to be revealed by the Secretary of Defense.

I would post the link but it has those pictures on the web site.

it's okay i have already posted the pictures from abu garhib and i don't believe anyone has complained. the nudity was censored.

the rape and attack with the chemical light are not in the pictures. that detail was in the taguba report.

other details of american abuse of pow's can be found by searching for.
the salt pit, Khalid El-Masri, habibullah and dilawar.

if you can't find anything too detailed i will be happy to help.

what's intersting about the taguba report is that it was ignored.

I will look that up. I am going to say this about that quote. Since he said it when there were only photos and they didn't look THAT bad and was just like what Rush said, a collage hazing', I will say he wasn't completely in the wrong when he said it. After what came out later on in the month it looks like a TERRIBLE quote. I will send you a link of the time line site I found.

I am not posting the link. I take no chance with that considering how many times I was a vote or two away from being perma banned.

point to it on the page i gave then.

http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/archi...aib_photos.htm

i'm probably far closer to a ban than you. but i don't believe it is offensive.

You would like to think that but I have 5 years of warnings, bans and other crap against me. I think I used up any and all capital I ever had. I think I had to start borrowing other people's capital XD

I will look at that site when I get home. I am at work now and don't really feel comfortable looking at said pictures here. I even just scrolled by the few that were on the page I sent you.

I don't object to the photos. The thing I object to is when spamming the Abu Graib pics becomes an answer to some point raised with no other content. If you can't deal with the arguments raised, than don't post. If a nasty pic is part of the discussion, I can deal, though I'd rather it be linked than have it turn up without warning.

it's there for a variety of reasons. first of all it's not uncommon. it wasn't a one off event. it is typical. read about the salt pit and the deaths in baghram to see that and the stories that come out of guantanamo.

it's the photo documentation we have of american torture. which we know is systematic and not a one time event.

it makes it visual. to see what we put people through and to see the people smile as they do it.

i think people tend to dismiss torture as being okay because they don't understand it. like shunakamura. i think the actual pain involved had missed him/her. it needs to be totally degrading and unbearable.

abu gharib is also intersting in many other ways. as well as being the most well known case of american torture it is one of the lightest punishments ever seen. the raping of young boys and girls took place in that prison. murders. some horrific abuse sexual, physical and emotional. and the most anyone got was 10 years. with no mention of the rapes and murders. it was a white wash and a testament to how deep this goes.

i don't think a lot of people cared. like our radio commentator there. some people just don't see the big deal. i remember lindy england's parensts saying she was just mucking around. they killed and raped people. it was a sadist mucking around.

and that is the way torture exists. to please the torturer. it's done with a smile.

all pictures of torture are going to be nasty and i choose the ones that i though suitable. there are some truly horrific ones out there that i didn't show. what i posted could have been seen on any 6 o'clock news.

the most horrific thing is not the pictures but the things that were not shown. the rape. the events in the salt pit and baghram. the burning and sodomy with chemical lights. that is the shocking stuff.

but having it visual makes it clearer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

it makes it visual. to see what we put people through and to see the people smile as they do it.

i think people tend to dismiss torture as being okay because they don't understand it. like shunakamura. i think the actual pain involved had missed him/her. it needs to be totally degrading and unbearable.

abu gharib is also intersting in many other ways. as well as being the most well known case of american torture it is one of the lightest punishments ever seen. the raping of young boys and girls took place in that prison. murders. some horrific abuse sexual, physical and emotional. and the most anyone got was 10 years. with no mention of the rapes and murders. it was a white wash and a testament to how deep this goes.

i don't think a lot of people cared. like our radio commentator there. some people just don't see the big deal. i remember lindy england's parensts saying she was just mucking around. they killed and raped people. it was a sadist mucking around.

---

I agree with you that posting the pictures can show your point better than words can. The thing is that a few times it was in response to a question about what the generals thought about torture, or whether anyone in the interigation field thought it worked. There's a difference in showing torture in a newsworthy fashion and spamming pictures of torture and death.

I don't doubt that some of those involved did enjoy the torture, just as there was a porn ring sceme to trade pictures of the Iraqi war dead for porn. But that doesn't mean everyone enjoyed doing those things. Just that there are some sickos who do.

Quote:

---

all pictures of torture are going to be nasty and i choose the ones that i though suitable. there are some truly horrific ones out there that i didn't show. what i posted could have been seen on any 6 o'clock news.

the most horrific thing is not the pictures but the things that were not shown. the rape. the events in the salt pit and baghram. the burning and sodomy with chemical lights. that is the shocking stuff.

but having it visual makes it clearer.

---

I understand that torture pictures are going to be nasty. But I also understand that some people read EOFF while eating their Cheerios, and I don't think they should be made to puke.

And I could find horrible pictures of maimed soldiers if I'd wanted to. I saw a picture of a suicide bomber literally blown in half by his own bomb. I've seen pictures of Iraqis with their heads blown open and their brains leaking out. And there are hundreds of those out there.

like these:

Definitely far, far to graphic. --foa

the pictures were censored. there was ano excess of blood, gore or nudity. but they were still sickening. and i had nothing to do with their visual content. it's the actual human suffering that is seen and implied.

now i never got into the general and expert question as it is a very difficult thing to research as it seems most generals and intelligence experts say nothing on the matter. there a few excemptions like the one who spoke up for amnesty international last month. i've been searching for a transcript of his speech at the event.

"I don't doubt that some of those involved did enjoy the torture, just as there was a porn ring sceme to trade pictures of the Iraqi war dead for porn. But that doesn't mean everyone enjoyed doing those things. Just that there are some sickos who do." they are very much identical these incidents. those who commit them are obviously sadistic and enjoy what they are doing. everyone in those photos i gave enjoyed what they did. the fun had at the salt pit and baghram is obvious. it wasn't even torture. it was cold blooded, sadistic violence.

and it was enjoyed. that is why it is done. it's a failure on intelligence, tactics, strategy and morality. but some sick bastards get off on it.

*cough* cloud. I definately understand it. It is just that my level of unbearable is much higher then yours. Or so I guess. And I did attempt to explain why.

The only type that I really really am against is the sodomy and the like. once again I mentioned why.

Unbearable means unbearable. Unbearable means impossible to endure or tolerate. And when you use the word as a sweeping gesture to cover everyone, you just raise the bar up high. Some people's pain tolerence is damn high.

Torture does not have to be unbearable. You just have to convince them that they don't what to put up with more of it. That the better option is to give the information out.

Cloud, pretell, do you know the purpose one has when they go out on the wrestling mat to wrestle. The way we were taught was this. When you are out there you are supposed to inflict as much pain as possible whiling trying to avoid long lasting physical damage(such as breaking other people's bones on purpose). But all of the pain inflicted, despite the fact that I have seen many wrestlers give up due to it, is quite bearable. You do realize that in some wrestling moves you could break someones back(very low chance but it puts a load of pressure there and hurts lke no tomorrow.. or so I am told and have seen/heard(some of those guys scream loud), Though, I never felt anypain myself in the move.), another puts grinding pressure into the other fellas temple, etc... The goal in wrestling is to inflict enough pain to make the guy let you pin him. By how you are using it you would make this sound unbearable. Far from it... no effect on me.. not really. And no effect on many of my freinds.

Many people are weak willed, they will give in even if the pain isn't unbearable. You would be surprised what they human race can tolerate. Hell, in there ARE cases where rape isn't unbearable. Bearable is definately dependent on the individual. But if you apply it to the human race the bar can go up awfully darn high.

Quote:

---

Many people are weak willed, they will give in even if the pain isn't unbearable. You would be surprised what they human race can tolerate. Hell, in there ARE cases where rape isn't unbearable. Bearable is definately dependent on the individual. But if you apply it to the human race the bar can go up awfully darn high.

---

Hell, I kow people who cry like babies ir they get a paper cut.

pain is relative. but you are still putting people through unbearable pain. and it is not something that you sign up to like wrestling. it is about taking a defenceless powerless person and pushing them as hard as you can.

and some people just don't know when to stop. look at the two dead of indetical wounds in baghram. what killed them? it wasn't a strike to the head, drowining, hypothermia, strangling, it wasn't broken ribs or exposure. it was simple, they were kicked and beaten on the knees until they died. it seems stupid and not a big deal. but they were beaten to death on their knees.

that's why neds here stab people in the leg. no basic knowledge of anatomy. to them they think it's a minor inconvienence to be stabbed in the leg so it's no big deal.

and i do have a rather high threshhold of pain. played matches with broken bones etc. doesn't mean i don't understand other people's threshhold of pain being lower.

and i think rape is as unbearable as things get.

and paper cuts can be rather painful.

Oh yes I understand that people have different threseholds. It is just that whenever you tend to use the word unbearable I get the feeling you are implying that it is unbearable in a universal sense. Thus, the whole cause of this that and the fact I don't think torture has to be unbearable to be effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and i think rape is as unbearable as things get.

---

You and me both. But I have read(non-fiction(or so they claimed/implied) accounts of course) about the rare person who is raped and can just shrug it off. The only way I have ever seen and been able to explain it, is that some people just do not attach much to sex.. and thus it is less meaningful. It still stings thier pride and the like, but nowhere near the amount that many others go through.

Never seen such a thing personally so perhaps the accounts were just blowing smoke.

The whole wrestling thing is to try to get accross A) that pain is realitive and what is unbearable to one is bearable to another and B) that pain does not have to be unbearable to be effective in convincing someone to do what you want.

Those guys who give up and finally let you pin them in the match... well they aren't at the limit of pain they have just decided(in many cases) that it wasn't worth it. Same thing with the wrestling choke holds. If you fight to you pass out, it is no big deal. But most of the guys I have seen give up before hand.. .which pisses off most of the coaches I have met. But anyways just an example that people will give up before something becomes unbearable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

but they were beaten to death on their knees.

---

Blunt type damage can sometimes be more effective in killing then say a pointed weapon. A pointed type will generally cause bleeding damage(or instant(or near enough) death in the right spot), where as a blunt causes crushing, sometimes bleeding(if it is powerful enough internal bleeding isn't a far stretch), and instant(or near enough) death if hit in the right spot.

Thus it ain't hard for me to see that happening. And guess what that is? Murder. So charge them with murder.


As for the paper cut thing... I have always wondered why they sting so much. Easily enough ignored but it never fails to surprise me that it does actually hurt. Such a small wound to be causing pain. Heck I can smash my toe under a hammer and have it hurt less then that(and I mean after shock wheres off, if it ever set in.).

How about paper cut torture? would that be a viable way, that would be justifiable... then again we would probably here of someone bleeding to death due to it ... or some such.

"But I have read(non-fiction(or so they claimed/implied) accounts of course) about the rare person who is raped and can just shrug it off." but can we justify it?

paper cut torture would still have the same problems as anything else. you would be pushing a human being to the capability to withstand pain.

but the problem lies here. torture cannot be used for short terms bombings like in iraq. so it needs to be used for long term issues. like say to stop big plans like 9-11.

but then we end up with a guantanamo situation. which isn't good either.

there's no good way to use torture. and without a way there is no reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"But I have read(non-fiction(or so they claimed/implied) accounts of course) about the rare person who is raped and can just shrug it off." but can we justify it?

paper cut torture would still have the same problems as anything else. you would be pushing a human being to the capability to withstand pain.

but the problem lies here. torture cannot be used for short terms bombings like in iraq. so it needs to be used for long term issues. like say to stop big plans like 9-11.

but then we end up with a guantanamo situation. which isn't good either.

there's no good way to use torture. and without a way there is no reason.

---

So we should even sacrifice ordinary citizens to Geneva now? Honestly Cloud, google a few pictures of what suicide bombings actually do to people. Look at the images of people jumping off the twin towers rather than being burned to death. I could marginally see this when we were speaking of the millitary only, but civillians didn't sign on to this. I don't think it's fair to ask a non-millitary person to put himself in danger because of Geneva. With a millitary person, the general or whatever could say "take the high road etc." and the soldiers would probably be OK with it. (I am still leaving it to the generals in the field though, not to armchair generals sitting at home watching the war on CNN.)

But with a civillian, they aren't in the services. In fact, the whole purpose of millitary and police is to protect the citizen from being killed. If the millitary is going to allow a civillian to die for law, honor or anything else, that milllitary is shirking its duty to protect its citizens. If that's the case, lets save however many billions of dollars and disband the millitary now. A hammer that can't drive a nail is worthless, as is one in the hands of a person that will never use it to drive nails.

Geneva is simply not that important that we should sacrifice everything else to satisfy Geneva Conventions. It is important, and a step toward the right direction, but because it doesn't provide for self-defense or defense of your own citizens, it's fundementally flawed.

it makes no difference though that's the point. it will not save lives. it doesn't work for planted bombs. and guantanamo is a crappy idea that fails.

so the entire idea is flawed. and all it does is add fuel to the fire.

and that is the real essence of it. it doesn't work. and so is injustifiable. it serves but one purpose. to put a sick little smile onto the faces of sadistic idiots who have no right to be anywhere but jail.

Quote:

---

it will not save lives. it doesn't work for planted bombs.

---

And you say this, based on what practical knowledge you might have? I could easily find many Military and Government Intelligence men, plus many soldiers and generals, that would claim the opposite. And they, unlike you, know what they're speaking of.

Now, given the fact it DOES save lives and that it DOES prevent destruction, havoc and general trouble caused by terrorist acts, would you think it is justifiable? Should torture be excercised on a terrorist, in order to prevent more killing? Or is the price of torture too high, for saving lives?

Or, perhaps you stick by your previous argument, that the saving of lives is not worth breaching the International Law for? That your moral values are more important than the very lives of those close and dear to you?

Please don't evade a direct answer this time. I'd like to know where you stand on this... because it truly baffles me.

tell me how long does it take to arrest a man and torture information out of him. bear in mind that guy fawkes took a few days under harsh medieval treatment.

now tell me how long bombs are planted for. they aren't left for a few days. they are dropped off and detonated.

so it both fails and is immoral. and breaching international law causes death to the soliders who breach it (simply hang them) and it makes more bombers.

fruitless in every possible situation. made for the sick and depraved. part of the dehumanising process this world has seen over the last 4 years.

Look, don't argue with facts. I'm telling you it has happened many, many times, and that's only here. There's really no point in claiming otherwise - I'm telling you this, as a man that knows a little bit, and has read and heard a bit on the subject. That 'bit' being a whole lot more than most people know.

Now, please address my question, given this aboslute axiom and unquestionable information.

And you know what, even if you still don't believe it, just ASSUME it helps, and hyopthetically, tell me if it's justifiable.

i will answer the question one more time. yes they can break it. but they will be tried and sentenced for it (unlike abu gahrib) the same as any other war criminal they will stand beside in history with mengel and uday hussein. no justifiable reason. not for saving lives. never.

and find me one case were we have found the ticking bomb scenario. when a planted bomb has been found in disarmed from the point it was placed to the time it was meant to have detonated. one case where torture has prevented that.

it's not about international law. law is a reflection of morality. it's about how far are willing to go. if we are better than our enemy. and right now we are not. no better than the suicide bombers in the west bank, in baghdad, in indonesia. the same torturers and murderers. different cause.

so yes. people will die for morality. that is the case with morality sometimes. but we need to remain above our enemies. to remain righteous and just.

Quote:

---

no justifiable reason. not for saving lives. never.

---

Quote:

---

so yes. people will die for morality. that is the case with morality sometimes

---

There is no 'morality' if innocent people are dying for it. There's no 'higher ground' if you let your own people die and suffer so you don't get your hands dirty.

This is pointless. You're hopeless. I'm just glad there are real brave men and women out there who actually CARE about other people, their security, well-being and their lives. Looking after vague, disconnected-from-reality moral values, at the expense of what really counts, and what's really important is wrong. So very, very wrong. Eventually, it's no better than being like Mengale, Uday Hussein, Stalin, or any other historic figure that doesn't care for human lives, and humans themselves. They, too, put their beliefs and ideas above the value of human life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

i will answer the question one more time. yes they can break it. but they will be tried and sentenced for it (unlike abu gahrib) the same as any other war criminal they will stand beside in history with mengel and uday hussein. no justifiable reason. not for saving lives. never.

---

Ok so then what you are saying is that all law-breakers are identical. That circumstances never play a part in how serious the punishment should be. So a guy who kills another for fun is the same as a guy who kills to protect his family? The guy who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family is exactly the same as the guy who steals your PS2 to sell for drug money?

This is going backwards in moral thinking. Circumstances and intent matters. Someone defending himself getting the exact same treatment as someone who kills for fun isn't justice.

And like it or not, in most laws there are different degrees of breaking the law. Just to show it, in the case of murder there are 5 classes of murder (well, it's usually called homicide, but whatever): Justifiable Homicide (This is the self defense case), Manslaughter (you didn't mean to do it), 3rd Degree (heat of the moment), 2nd degree (Malice but not premeditated), 3rd degree (Malice and premeditation). Now a person can get a death sentance for murder/homicide in the USA. But usually it's reserved for the more severe cases (2nd and 3rd degree murder) and only for the individuals judged mentally competant to understand the severity of the crime and can follow the trial and help in their own defense.

The reason that all homicides don't carry the same sentence is that not all murders are equal. The other person still dies, but the situation of self defense is 180 degrees from the case of an angry ex-husband who stalks his ex-wife for 6 months and stabs her 32 times in front of her kid. And the case of a person who didn't mean to kill the other person is different from our stalker too. They may have only intended to injure the guy, but he died. That isn't a premeditated murder. So by your fomulation, if I were to apply the morality your using with Geneva, this is all horrible, because the woman who kills a guy threatening her kids is identical to the person who stalks a person and kills him in cold blood. And anyone who kills another is identical to BTK, The Zodiac Killer, and Jeffrey Dahlmer. All deserve death, and if I dare take into account the circumstances, I'm somehow evil. Because the mother should obviously prefer watching her children die in front of her rather than break a law.

That's all I'm saying about Geneva Convention. There are different circumstances and different degrees of breaking Geneva. I could technically break Geneva (If I understand properly) by giving a Christian the wrong version of the Bible (KJV or Vulgate etc.) because I'm not familiar with the differences. However, to lump that in with a guy that runs a rape room and electricutes the soccer team for losing seems a far streach. And if a nation decides to torture to save its own citizens, this is different than torture for punishment or confession or making Lindy England get some stress relief.

I'm not asking that they be completely let off, I'm asking for the judges to take into account what was going on at the time, the severity of the actual violation, and the mental capacity of those involved. Just like any other crime.

Quote:

---

so yes. people will die for morality. that is the case with morality sometimes

---

When an abortion clinic is bombed, one could argue that the victims "died for morality". :mad: Doesn't make it less reprehensible. Die for your own damn morals. Events like 9-11 require alot of planning, so yes, torture could save lives in that kind of scenario.

"I'm just glad there are real brave men and women out there who actually CARE about other people, their security, well-being and their lives." i'm not glad iraq is now full of torturers no different from the ones we ousted.

the thing gnostic yevon torture is a crime like no other (except genocide). a crimw with no justifiable reason. inside or outside war. war crimes themselves in any case have no justifiable reason. torture though can be performed outside war (just a side note). and it is excluded from the self defence law in the same way killing civillians and genocide is.

there are different rules to break within geneva. each carrying it's own punishment as you rightly pointed out. you would not be treated the same way as uday hussien. but uday hussein should be treated like mengel should have been and lindy england should have been.

and at the end of the day there is no self defence rule. it cannot and will not work. it can take days to break a person done. even with the most extreme methods. that is not enough time to do anything. and provides dross for intelligence. history shows us this. it is undenible how long torture takes to take effect and how stupid the intelligence it brings. to argue otherwise is to deny historic fact.

it does not work.

and that is why it is unjustifiable. because it is useless as well as stupidly immoral.

torture is an unjustifiablke act. and yes maybe if it did work it would save lives. but at the end of the day what are we fighting for? if we were fighting to save lives we would have never invaded iraq. we fought for justice and freedom. and we are failing on the very basis for what we are there for. and that is why they hate us. that is why they will blow up us servicemen is the street. because we use medieval methods which we promised to free them from.

at least then they and the rest of the world knew it was wrong. now america has the cheek to justify it and say it is alright for them to do it but noone else.

"Just like any other crime." but it's not just any other crime. it is the second greatest crime. it is above murder and rape. it is below genocide and that is all. a crime for which no exception can be made. a crime that doesn't work for intelligence, deterance or any other reason except sadism. personally if america sees fit to holds
the death sentence i would have hung everyone responsible in abu gharib. it's a crime not done in anger, rage, for reason. it is done in the same vain as rape (they did that as well though) for out of boredom. it was done for enjoyment. to watch the faces of the men, women and children they abused there. why they kicked the men to death in baghram. while they let a man catch hypothermia in the salt pit. it was fun to them.

they had a man's life in their hands. could do whatever they wanted. and choose to abuse that. it was not done to gain intelligence. it was for a sick pleasure i can't and don't wish to understand.

look at the mentality that has been shown of some american soldiers. posting pictures of dismembered bodies. reveling in the destruction of humanity. and these are the people we trust to rob a man of dignity and put him through unbearable pain?

and to what point? to make people angry at us they do what we are trying in vain to stop? to gain dross for intelligence? to give further ground for dehumanisation? to allow our soliders to be targets for everyone? so the rest of the world can ask why we let america continue?

and yes people will die for morality. they always have. that is what we fight and die for. to not be our enemy. turn the other cheek.

Cloud. How long in advance do you think 9-11 was planned? Eh? There can easily be time to get it from someone. You just gotta predict correctly and pick the right things to learn about.

As for torture being worse then rape.. yeah right. You know there is proably a reason rape is included in some tortures... posibly because there isn't much worse then you could do to a person.


Well if we can't save lives cloud then I guess we should just do what my mom says we should do. Any country that even raises a hand to the US, nuke and bomb the hell out of before anything else can happen. Rather I would prefer to save lives. But if saving lives is wrong then perhaps blowing the out lives is right.

Until I see 100% proof that the type of torture myself and some others are thinking/talking about doesn't work and is just done for sick enjoyment I will still hold to the fact that it can be justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

and yes people will die for morality. they always have. that is what we fight and die for. to not be our enemy. turn the other cheek.

---

Yes people die for THIER morality. But what if this isn't thier morality?

And just cause you use similar methods as ones foe does not make one one's foe. That type of reasoning is absurb. Tools are tools. Anyone can use them without becoming something else. That type of logic says I am a criminal if I buy a gun that just happens to be of the same make as 90% of criminals use. Or that if a criminal gets ahold of a police firearm it makes them a policman.

There is more then just the tool to take into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"I'm just glad there are real brave men and women out there who actually CARE about other people, their security, well-being and their lives." i'm not glad iraq is now full of torturers no different from the ones we ousted.

the thing gnostic yevon torture is a crime like no other (except genocide). a crimw with no justifiable reason. inside or outside war. war crimes themselves in any case have no justifiable reason. torture though can be performed outside war (just a side note). and it is excluded from the self defence law in the same way killing civillians and genocide is.

---

Actually, I think it's below several crimes. It would be far worse to simply kill them. So at best it's fourth: Genocide, Serial Killing, Murder, then Torture.

Quote:

---

there are different rules to break within geneva. each carrying it's own punishment as you rightly pointed out. you would not be treated the same way as uday hussien. but uday hussein should be treated like mengel should have been and lindy england should have been.

---

I'm glad something has gotten through. But I never asked for the torturers to get completely free of Geneva. All I'm asking for is a fair judge who can look at such issues as whether the torture was done out of Sadism or out of a desire to protect other people from bombs. As well as looking at the people involved as far as their mental capacity and degree of involvement. I think the method should be considered as well, because some methods are clearly worse than others. Sleep deprivation seems to be less than say rape or the iron maiden.

By treating all cases exactly the same, I think you'd cheapen the act. If a person who keeps a prisoner awake with Guns & Roses, and he's treated exactly the same as a person who literally beats a man to death, then the two crimes must be identical. But they aren't. In the second case, a guy died of a horrible beating, and in the first, a guy was kept up listening to really bad music. And to my mind, it would mean that it's no worse to beat a man to death than it is to make him listen to music (in which case, I had a college roommate who made me lose sleep. Is he as bad as Mangle?). So why not use the worst methods? You're gonna get hung either way.

Quote:

---

and at the end of the day there is no self defence rule. it cannot and will not work. it can take days to break a person done. even with the most extreme methods. that is not enough time to do anything. and provides dross for intelligence. history shows us this. it is undenible how long torture takes to take effect and how stupid the intelligence it brings. to argue otherwise is to deny historic fact.

it does not work.

---

You keep stating as a fact that torture couldn't work. I'm still waiting for documentation. A psycological study, an interigator's news article or a statement by a general in Iraq. You can't simply keep repeating your opinion over and over and expect me to start believing you. As Jerry Maguire says "Show me the money". Otherwise stop saying that torture doesn't work, because you have zero evidence to back you up.

Quote:

---

torture is an unjustifiablke act. and yes maybe if it did work it would save lives. but at the end of the day what are we fighting for? if we were fighting to save lives we would have never invaded iraq. we fought for justice and freedom. and we are failing on the very basis for what we are there for. and that is why they hate us. that is why they will blow up us servicemen is the street. because we use medieval methods which we promised to free them from.

---

We invaded because we believed there were WMDs in Iraq, to start with. Not to free people. So the idea that we invaded for "peace and freedom" is fairly specious. That's why the Valerie Plame thing is such a big deal. Without the Yellow Cake, our case for war is false, because it would have been shown that there were no WMDs. That's why Scooter Libby outed Valerie, for helping to discredit the cause for war.

So we "failed on the very basis we invaded for" when we discovered that the WMDs that were supposed to be there -- weren't. From that day on, the name of the game has been "stabilizing the country". We seem to think that we can do so with a democratic state. I have my doubts, but that's what we're trying to do. And the insurgency is actually dozens of groups fighting for control of the country, from Dawa to Anarcists to Communists. They're essentially fighting to be the ones to drive the Americans out and thus take control for their group. Torture or nontorture has very little to do with it.

Quote:

---

"Just like any other crime." but it's not just any other crime. it is the second greatest crime. it is above murder and rape. it is below genocide and that is all. a crime for which no exception can be made. a crime that doesn't work for intelligence, deterance or any other reason except sadism. personally if america sees fit to holds the death sentence i would have hung everyone responsible in abu gharib. it's a crime not done in anger, rage, for reason. it is done in the same vain as rape (they did that as well though) for out of boredom. it was done for enjoyment. to watch the faces of the men, women and children they abused there. why they kicked the men to death in baghram. while they let a man catch hypothermia in the salt pit. it was fun to them.

---

Not only can you somehow magickally devine the opinions of interrigation experts, now you can tell exactly what people are thinking. Unless England or someone else made such a statement (and I want the direct quote and a source), you have absolutley no way of knowing what is going on in anyone's head.

Quote:

---

and yes people will die for morality. they always have. that is what we fight and die for. to not be our enemy. turn the other cheek.

---

Cloud, true people might choose to die for their own morality, but they rarely die for other people's morality, and to my knowledge, not one person has ever died for international law.

And "turn the other cheek" is not the morality for times when there is no law and order or in war zones. Unless you want to die.

after being disturbed while first writing this it seems it won't be as good a post as it was before.

9-11 was a long planned event. such events are the ones that are being investigated in guantanamo. guantanamo is an outright failure. we know the kind of information coming out of there. the false confessions. the men claiming to be and have met bin laden. and we plan to base a war on this?

and it doesn't work for the short term.

"And just cause you use similar methods as ones foe does not make one one's foe." this would be true if lindy england wasn't smiling as much as mengel and uday.

and yes certain versions of torture are different. but they are the same crime and will be tried the same. the same rules apply of being unjustifiable. the sentence may be more leniant. but at the end of the day you will still be a war criminal. and american troops do beat men to death and use barbaric torture methods anyway.

"You keep stating as a fact that torture couldn't work. I'm still waiting for documentation." actually the kubark manual itslef states it doesn't work. generals and experts stating for or against torture are hard to find. there is an intersting psychological study on orders and it's position in torture (the one were the person is told to electrocute the other for answering the questions wrong). but the kubaek manual states plainly that torture doesn't work.

bombins in iraq went up the days following the break of the abu gharib scandal. then on times folloiwng with release of mor pictures, the british scandal etc.

the smile on lindy englan's face said it all really. the thumbs up over dead iraqi's bodies. they were happy in what they were doing. it's plainly obvious. happy smiley people. happy in rape and torture.

and is torture these people morality? this is what they wanted to escape. i think returning to those days would be the last thing these people want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"And just cause you use similar methods as ones foe does not make one one's foe." this would be true if lindy england wasn't smiling as much as mengel and uday.

---

You still can't possibly know what she was thinking in those photos. Unless she's said something to that effect, you can't show me that she was doing this for fun. In fact, if I'm remembering right, she said she was ordered to do all those things by a commanding officer (whom she apparently conceived a child with). Not to make it an excuse, but that is different than torturing "for fun", which is what you keep trying to paint this as. Show me her statements if you want to keep saying that Lindy England did any of that for fun.

Quote:

---

and yes certain versions of torture are different. but they are the same crime and will be tried the same. the same rules apply of being unjustifiable. the sentence may be more leniant. but at the end of the day you will still be a war criminal. and american troops do beat men to death and use barbaric torture methods anyway.

---

That's all I'm asking for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"You keep stating as a fact that torture couldn't work. I'm still waiting for documentation." actually the kubark manual itslef states it doesn't work. generals and experts stating for or against torture are hard to find. there is an intersting psychological study on orders and it's position in torture (the one were the person is told to electrocute the other for answering the questions wrong). but the kubaek manual states plainly that torture doesn't work.

---

OK, do you have a link to the manual, or are we just supposed to take your word for it? As to the generals and experts, I suspect that they at least believe that torture works, because if it didn't they wouldn't want to waste time doing it, nor make their own nation look bad. Especially considering that a general who says "torture doesn't work" would probably be able to make quite a name for himself on the news networks and speech circuts. Not to say that their silence is 100% proof, but if there are rewards available for saying something that people desprately want to believe and no one is saying that thing, it's been my experience that the reason is that the statement people want to believe isn't really true.

And the psychological study on whether a person would electricute another if ordered to is irrelevant. The question is "Does torture work?", not "would a person torture if told to do so by an authority?". I remember reading about this study in a psychology class. It's fairly well known. But it has nothing to do with the justice or morality of torture for intelligence purposes. That is what we're debating.

Quote:

---

bombins in iraq went up the days following the break of the abu gharib scandal. then on times folloiwng with release of mor pictures, the british scandal etc.

---

post hoc ergo propter hoc Take a course in logic. On the first day of class, they'll explain to you why this type of reasoning doesn't work.

Quote:

---

and is torture these people morality? this is what they wanted to escape. i think returning to those days would be the last thing these people want.

---

I would think what the Iraqis want is not having their kids blown up and not having to fear for their lives if they dare to run for public office. But whatever.

taking orders is not an excuse. simple nuremburg principle. the defining one in fact. she performed torture not out of duty (there is not such thing) but out of self determination. she smiled for the same reason as all the other soldiers there. you can look at many other stories of abuse and torture and we can see similar patterns. the laughing and fun had by gaurds by inflicting pain on others. one story i will try and find later shows how deep this goes.

the kubark manual. after a little while trying to find it i did manage to get a link.

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/kub_ix.htm

i disagree with the majority of the document but for the sake of reference we can look at what the cia think of painful torture. IX h.

basicly it doesn't work in any circumstance. the cia's view. there is your intelligence expert.

i studied logic as part of rmpe. and what we see in iraq is a pattern. yes somedays are worse than others and some days don't follow a pattern. but the massive rise in violence and execution of berg and the rises in violence when further things were released shows a pattern of revenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

taking orders is not an excuse. simple nuremburg principle. the defining one in fact. she performed torture not out of duty (there is not such thing) but out of self determination. she smiled for the same reason as all the other soldiers there. you can look at many other stories of abuse and torture and we can see similar patterns. the laughing and fun had by gaurds by inflicting pain on others. one story i will try and find later shows how deep this goes.

---

I didn't say it was an excuse. What I said was that she never claimed to be torturing for fun. That's the point. Her statements say that is was for other reasons, so to say that it was for fun is simply false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

Well, I've made up my mind. I'm not voting for him in the next election.

---

Nobody can vote for him in the next election (not that anybody would if they could). Once he finishes this term, he's out of there, because it's his second and he can't be elected again. I just wonder if things would be worse if Kerry were elected...

i do believe it was no my judgement that the acts were committed out of sadism but donald rumsfield where is quote as calling the unreleased videos (the rape and sodomy) as "sadistic, cruel and inhuman". sadism by it's very nature is enjoyment.

and charles graner himself admits his enjoyment in the proceedings. "The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.'"

graner of course was a sadist by nature. a man who many times had been suspected and charged with many serious and violent offences.

so what does the us military do with such a man? they place him in charge of a prison full of defenceless and powerless men. a few of which he will rape, sodomise and kill. gotta love that logic. you've got to ask yourself why a man with such a known violent streak was allowed into that prison. he was also a known racist.

i case at the very least we could claim lindy england had no common sense and was a total idiot.

garner on the other hand......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elite Lord Sigma

Nobody can vote for him in the next election (not that anybody would if they could). Once he finishes this term, he's out of there, because it's his second and he can't be elected again. I just wonder if things would be worse if Kerry were elected...

---

Wow! I had no idea! Thanks for telling me, Captain Obvious!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kubrick

Everyone is aware that people react very differently to pain. The reason, apparently, is not a physical difference in the intensity of the sensation itself. Lawrence E. Hinkle observes, "The sensation of pain seems to be roughly equal in all men, that is to say, all people have approximately the same threshold at which they begin to feel pain, and when carefully graded stimuli are applied to them, their estimates of severity are approximately the same.... Yet... when men are very highly motivated... they have been known to carry out rather complex tasks while enduring the most intense pain." He also states, "In general, it appears that whatever may be the role of the constitutional endowment in determining the reaction to pain, it is a much less important determinant than is the attitude of the man who experiences the pain." (7)

The wide range of individual reactions to pain may be partially explicable in terms of early conditioning. The person whose first encounters with pain were frightening and intense may be more violently affected by its later infliction than one whose original experiences were mild. Or the reverse may be true, and the man whose childhood familiarized him with pain may dread

it less, and react less, than one whose distress is heightened by fear of the unknown. The individual remains the determinant.

It has been plausibly suggested that, whereas pain inflicted on a person from outside himself may actually focus or intensify his will to resist, his resistance is likelier to be sapped by pain which he seems to inflict upon himself. "In the simple torture situation the contest is one between the individual and his tormentor (.... and he can frequently endure). When the individual is told to stand at attention for long periods, an intervening factor is introduced. The immediate source of pain is not the interrogator but the victim himself. The motivational strength of the individual is likely to exhaust itself in this internal encounter.... As long as the subject remains standing, he is attributing to his captor the power to do something worse to him, but there is actually no showdown of the ability of the interrogator to do so." (4)

Interrogatees who are withholding but who feel qualms of guilt and a secret desire to yield are likely to become intractable if made to endure pain. The reason is that they can then interpret the pain as punishment and hence as expiation. There are also persons who enjoy pain and its anticipation and who will keep back information that they might otherwise divulge if they are given reason to expect that withholding will result in the punishment that they want. Persons of considerable moral or intellectual stature often find in pain inflicted by others a confirmation of the belief that they are in the hands of inferiors, and their resolve not to submit is strengthened.

Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, concocted as a means of escaping from distress. A time-consuming delay results, while investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite the interrogatee can pull himself together. He may even use the time to think up new, more complex "admissions" that take still longer to disprove. KUBARK is especially vulnerable to such tactics because the interrogation is conducted for the sake of information and not for police purposes.

If an interrogatee is caused to suffer pain rather late in the interrogation process and after other tactics have failed, he is almost certain to conclude that the interrogator is becoming desperate. He may then decide that if he can just hold out against this final assault, he will win the struggle and his freedom. And he is likely to be right. Interrogatees who have withstood pain are more difficult to handle by other methods. The effect has been not to repress the subject but to restore his confidence and maturity.

---

This is the only point where it even discusses what would be called torture, and it only lists two cases where the pain doesn't work. First, if it's used as a last resort, and second if it is two severe. That's it. The rest will work, but are somewhat subject to the individual's pain tolerance.

Far from discrediting torture for information, this document is mostly a how-to guide.

it actually says it can become a power struggle and increases his will to resist, if he is guilty he feels punished and so the job is done for him.

many people may also feel vindicated in their actions. if an american soldier is torturing you why feel bad about that bomb his friend's truck is about to run over?

now the problem still remains with the kubark method. time. it does not give quick results and so is useless in a war scenario.

and yes it is a how to guide. but it is one that totally discredits painful torture (that is why i linked it) in the same way american soldiers are using.

and that little story i promised you about the way in which torture was committed. i forgot to give it but i think it's okay right now. it's about our friend mr dilawar. one of the two beaten to death by his knees.

When beaten, he repeatedly cried "Allah!" The outcry appears to have amused U.S. military personnel, as the act of striking him in order to provoke a scream of "Allah!" eventually "became a kind of running joke," according to one of the MP's. "People kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out 'Allah,' " he said. "It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes."

i disagree with the kubark manual. it is not new in fact. and has been tried before. it was the same methods used in ireland against the ira. it produced two famous convitions, the birmingham six and gthe guildford four.