Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 26789101112
Results 166 to 179 of 179

Thread: "Anti-Torture Amendment"; Bush disapproves

  1. #166

    Default

    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.

  2. #167
    Destroyer of Worlds DarkLadyNyara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pandaemonium, the Castle of Hell
    Posts
    3,255

    Default

    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". 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.

  3. #168
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    scotland
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    "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.

  4. #169
    Grimoire of the Sages ShunNakamura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northwest Ohio
    Posts
    2,919

    Default

    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.


    STILL Updating the anime list. . . I didn't think I was that much of an anime freak! I don't even want to consider updating the manga list!

  5. #170

    Default

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    "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.

    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.
    Last edited by Gnostic Yevon; 10-31-2005 at 03:12 AM.

  6. #171
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    scotland
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    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.

  7. #172

    Default

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Gnostic Yevon; 10-31-2005 at 02:13 PM.

  8. #173
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    scotland
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    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.

  9. #174

    Default

    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.

  10. #175
    Resident Fire Emblem Fan Elite Lord Sigma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,327

    Default

    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...

  11. #176
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    scotland
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    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......

  12. #177
    Scatter, Senbonzakura... DocFrance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    The high, untrespassed sanctity of space
    Posts
    2,805

    Default

    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!
    ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
    (1) Eric Clapton is God.
    (2) Therefore, God exists.

  13. #178

    Default

    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.

  14. #179
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    scotland
    Posts
    1,938

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •