Torture question
-
QUOTE (CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel @ Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment)
Part IArticle 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Cal, you may not call water boarding torture, but remember that the United States executed Japanese officers after the war for torturing POWs, including water boarding. I know you like double standards though.
-
Yeah, Cal. People have been defining torture for a long, long time. And we agreed to that definition when we signed the treaty. Which makes it law.
Sorry.
-
Well, I didn't know about the Japanese waterboarding. I'd have to research that one.
I thought it was Chinese water torture, drops of water on the forehead for hours.
But still, PB&J, you doofusly miss the point.
It is not a double standard.
The Japanese, if they did use it, did not use it in dire emergencies on definately in the know higher ups in a terrorist org to
get information that would prevent another 9/11 and save many American civilians' lives.
vs the Japanese, that was a conventional war. Torturing for no good reason was the Nazis, Japanese, etc.'s motus operandi.
This is the war on terror. Completely different situation.
In very, very specific emergency situations, very specific reasons vs a new terrorist attack, vs very, very specific terrorists
that definately know the information needed to stop the terrorist attack...
Very different situations.
Which, is above your head perhaps, but still true.
-
Well, I didn't know about the Japanese waterboarding. I'd have to research that one.
I thought it was Chinese water torture, drops of water on the forehead for hours.
But still, PB&J, you doofusly miss the point.
It is not a double standard.
The Japanese, if they did use it, did not use it in dire emergencies on definately in the know higher ups in a terrorist org to
get information that would prevent another 9/11 and save many American civilians' lives.
vs the Japanese, that was a conventional war. Torturing for no good reason was the Nazis, Japanese, etc.'s motus operandi.
This is the war on terror. Completely different situation.
In very, very specific emergency situations, very specific reasons vs a new terrorist attack, vs very, very specific terrorists
that definately know the information needed to stop the terrorist attack...
Very different situations.
Which, is above your head perhaps, but still true.
Well, I didn't know about the Japanese waterboarding. I'd have to research that one.
I thought it was Chinese water torture, drops of water on the forehead for hours.
But still, PB&J, you doofusly miss the point.
It is not a double standard.
The Japanese, if they did use it, did not use it in dire emergencies on definately in the know higher ups in a terrorist org to
get information that would prevent another 9/11 and save many American civilians' lives.
vs the Japanese, that was a conventional war. Torturing for no good reason was the Nazis, Japanese, etc.'s motus operandi.
This is the war on terror. Completely different situation.
In very, very specific emergency situations, very specific reasons vs a new terrorist attack, vs very, very specific terrorists
that definately know the information needed to stop the terrorist attack...
Very different situations.
Which, is above your head perhaps, but still true.
This is my favorite defense of torture ever.
-
Nancy Piglosi, has outdone herself today during a press conference. She states that she was not "briefed" but she was told about it by someone else in Congress.
Well then Nancy, that means you were in the know about waterboarding. So if she is so against the use of this technic then she should of opened her trap about it back then.
Another Idiot looking out for the best intrests for America, Piglosi
Not! -
"I know right after 9/11 I would of said give their nuts paper cuts and pour salt on em'. My anger was that high, and I wasn't alone. Apparently so was the US government."
Which is why we have laws, right?
My point is that the justifications for this have shifted and shifted and shifted again. First it was "we don't torture." We flat out denied it. Then we blamed it on a few bad apples on the night shift, but denied that it was official policy. But we think it'd be okay in the "ticking time bomb" scenario. (A scenario that has never happened, except on TV.) Then we denied torturing at Guantanamo. Then we admitted that we did it, but only to three people, and briefly, and we don't call it "torture". Then we found out we did it over and over again, and to more than just those three people, and it clearly was "torture". So then the justification became that we did it because it worked, and it saved lives. And it's now clear this was official US policy under the Bush administration.
And now we're learning that we did it before this was official policy with legal cover, and not in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, and not in order to get information to stop an impending attack, but to get someone to admit that Al Qaeda and Saddam were working together.
And it worked, at least in the sense that we got some nutjob to say it was true, even though it wasn't true and he was lying.
So do you guys agree with this? Can we torture people to get intelligence information out of them?
Can we torture people to get intelligence information out of them?
Of course we can.
Is it possible someone will lie?
Sure.
Is it possible someone was given false info at HQ so even he doesn't know he's lying?
Sure.
It's also quite possible he'll spill the beans.
It's ridiculous to assume all information is real or all bogus.
If that's what you're asking.
WSS
-
Perhaps I should have asked "Should we" not "can we". Quite obviously we can, because we just did.
Should we be torturing people in order to acquire intelligence that isn't necessarily of the sort that saves lives?
-
Should we be torturing people in order to acquire intelligence that isn't necessarily of the sort that saves lives? Heck
********************************************
NO. Only in the extreme, very, very well verified cases of a national emergency, I can see getting a top terrorist with
critical info you KNOW he has... out of him to save thousands of American lives.
Never any other time.
-
But don't you think if we are in a situation where we know an attack is imminent, we are in a state of emergency and we have a top terrorist in our custody that we would have already figured out the plot and foiled it? It isn't as if top level guys are easy to come by, or are operating out of the United States.
And who is to decide when it is necessary? The president? Chiefs of staff? CIA director?
-
Of course not, if the deadly secrets he has only he knows, and will not tell til it's too late.
Who decides? The pres? and Chief of Staff?
Just because there are questions about how to proceed doesn't negate the reality of
once, sometime in a very serious situation, that time, you must have the information you
need to avoid another 9/11.
But, serious oversight must be included to avoid abuse of the policy.
And, using it as a political "gotcha" is very serious business against our country's
national security.
-
In that scenario especially, with the ticking clock, wouldn't the suspect have even more reason to withhold information or give false information? He knows that within hours it will be done and he will be a "hero".
Terrorists in Iraq? Hell no, they are in allied countries, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia!
And seriously, the Chevy Chase show? You are one sick, sick bastard Inspecta.
-
"Would beating the shit out of a guy be considered torture?"
Clearly.
And you weren't tortured. You just got the shit beat out of you.
-
The head of Al Quaeda in Iraq operates from Syria.
And, a terrorist might have two months to wait for the
diasaster to take place.
It isn't much of a rationalization to paint it as seconds ticking,
and saying the terrorist would be more likely to clam up for those final seconds.
-
So does anyone support torturing terrorists or terrorist suspects to get intelligence information?
Seems Cal does. Anyone else?
So does anyone support torturing terrorists or terrorist suspects to get intelligence information?
Seems Cal does. Anyone else?
Depends on what you consider torture.
I would put someone in a room outfitted with a train horn. Just blast the thing at intermittent intervals and every time they try to sleep.
-
Perhaps I should have asked "Should we" not "can we". Quite obviously we can, because we just did.
Should we be torturing people in order to acquire intelligence that isn't necessarily of the sort that saves lives?
Perhaps I should have asked "Should we" not "can we". Quite obviously we can, because we just did.
Should we be torturing people in order to acquire intelligence that isn't necessarily of the sort that saves lives?
Are you drawing a dstinction here?
I would think any information we'd try to get from Al Queda was for that purpose.
WSS
-
That's the first definition.
The alternate definition is reading mz the pussy's
immature, ignorant little retorts that ruin
most any thread on the board.
But, it won't work.
Name, rank and serial number is all I'll give.
Cal, Sgt. Farmer, Cheerios.
-
That's the first definition.
The alternate definition is reading mz the pussy's
immature, ignorant little retorts that ruin
most any thread on the board.
But, it won't work.
Name, rank and serial number is all I'll give.
Cal, Sgt. Farmer, Cheerios.
-
Well, it looks like we tortured people, or ordered them to be tortured, in order to prove there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So we tortured people to get information that wasn't there.
It's clearly illegal to do this. Obviously you guys don't seem to have a problem with the illegality of it, so forget about that. Do you think we should be doing this?
Also, if someone might have information about an ongoing murder spree here in this country, should we torture that person to try and save those lives?
-
Well, it looks like we tortured people, or ordered them to be tortured, in order to prove there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So we tortured people to get information that wasn't there.
It's clearly illegal to do this. Obviously you guys don't seem to have a problem with the illegality of it, so forget about that. Do you think we should be doing this?
Also, if someone might have information about an ongoing murder spree here in this country, should we torture that person to try and save those lives?
Well, it looks like we tortured people, or ordered them to be tortured, in order to prove there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. So we tortured people to get information that wasn't there.
It's clearly illegal to do this. Obviously you guys don't seem to have a problem with the illegality of it, so forget about that. Do you think we should be doing this?
Also, if someone might have information about an ongoing murder spree here in this country, should we torture that person to try and save those lives?
Different rules Heck.
That aside....I will ask a question....do you think the majority of these detainees are good, innocent people?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login