"Anti-Torture Amendment"; Bush disapproves

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[Madame Adequate]

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

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.

[ShunNakamura]

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-

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.

[Gnostic Yevon]

"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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

[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.

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.

[ShunNakamura]

"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).

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?

"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.

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.

"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.

[Gnostic Yevon]

"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.

"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.

[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.

"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.

[ShunNakamura]

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

water torture for hours on end

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[War Angel]

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.

[Cloud No.9]

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.

[War Angel]

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.

[ShunNakamura]

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).

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-

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)

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.

[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.

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.

[DarkLadyNyara]

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.