Originally Posted by Partisan

So how do we feel about torture?

Let's test it, here is a quick scenario.

A soldier from your country has been captured by the enemy, they believe that he has vital operational information, so they use torture to extract the information.

My questions are:

1. How do you react?
2. How should your govt react?
3. Does this fall within the Geneva & Hague Conventions?

1- i would be outraged
2- it would depend on context- a one off event by people on the spot should probably be ignored but i think a deliberate and continuous policy of torture should merit some form of retaliation.
3- the St Petersburg (1868) and Hague (1899 & 1907 & 1923) Conventions and the Geneva Protocol (1925) were superseded by the 1949 Geneva Conventions (4 Conventions (plus 2 Protocols from 1977) of which Convention 3 (Treatment of POWs) is of concern here;
the following can be considered War Crimes against POWs..." wilfull killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."
Article 48 defines those protected under Convention 3 as 'members of Armed Forces of parties to the conflict', and to 'members of militias and volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.'

Originally Posted by Redcell

Sometimes you must sacrafice a little to save alot. What is worse torturing a group of terrorists or knowing theres a way to save thousands of people and not taking any action? you must choose the lesser evil right? and i dont belive that what we did to those men in gitmo qualifies as torture what they do to our marines is torture.

The action of releasing those memos only helped the other side, and the decision to stop using those methods took away a good way to get intel on what is going on in thier heads and insight into thier plans.

I think I repeat other when I say that intell through torture is about as objective as ...... something totally not objective. He will sing like a canarie, regardless of the truth.
And your comment on sacreficing a little.... Christ, how would you feel if you were that little? There are people in Gitmo, who are totally unkown and can be as innocent as you are.

Originally Posted by Redcell

How is this helping The USA? his job is not to slander the right its to help everybody and not ruin National security.

How is torture helping the USA? You are talking about slander while you are under the pretence of spreading freedom and democracy by using torture as an instrument to achieve those noble goals? How is not torturing a breakdown in national security? The info isn't reliable to begin with. And what about your international image? If you want help from you alienated allies, this isn't the way... easy as pie!

Originally Posted by Partisan

So how do we feel about torture?

Let's test it, here is a quick scenario.

A soldier from your country has been captured by the enemy, they believe that he has vital operational information, so they use torture to extract the information.

My questions are:

1. How do you react?
2. How should your govt react?
3. Does this fall within the Geneva & Hague Conventions?

1) I'd feel sorry for the poor soul.
2) They'd feel sorry too and keep a clear head. Than they'd surely make clear that they don't descend to the sad, pathetic level of those who use torture to gain next to nothing.
3) This reaction will fall with a 100% certainty within the different conventions on human rights and POW rights...

Actually the irregular fighters are not protected under any convention.
Which is why it's not technically illegal.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Actually the irregular fighters are not protected under any convention.
Which is why it's not technically illegal.

So you are saying that our morals are defined by international treaty now?

Or loopholes?

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Actually the irregular fighters are not protected under any convention.
Which is why it's not technically illegal.

I was pretty sure that the rules were quite specific, check section 1, Chapter 1, Article 3 (it's not too far to scroll).

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/195

Still it's best to only apply the rules of decency and humanity to those that you like. After all, if a government is willing to pay a bounty to have anyone picked up off of the streets, kidnapped, tortured & incarcerated, without trial - they can't be all bad, can they?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcell
Sometimes you must sacrafice a little to save alot. What is worse torturing a group of terrorists or knowing theres a way to save thousands of people and not taking any action? you must choose the lesser evil right? and i dont belive that what we did to those men in gitmo qualifies as torture what they do to our marines is torture.

The action of releasing those memos only helped the other side, and the decision to stop using those methods took away a good way to get intel on what is going on in thier heads and insight into thier plans.

I think I repeat other when I say that intell through torture is about as objective as ...... something totally not objective. He will sing like a canarie, regardless of the truth.
And your comment on sacreficing a little.... Christ, how would you feel if you were that little? There are people in Gitmo, who are totally unkown and can be as innocent as you are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcell
How is this helping The USA? his job is not to slander the right its to help everybody and not ruin National security.

How is torture helping the USA? You are talking about slander while you are under the pretence of spreading freedom and democracy by using torture as an instrument to achieve those noble goals? How is not torturing a breakdown in national security? The info isn't reliable to begin with. And what about your international image? If you want help from you alienated allies, this isn't the way... easy as pie!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Partisan
So how do we feel about torture?

Let's test it, here is a quick scenario.

A soldier from your country has been captured by the enemy, they believe that he has vital operational information, so they use torture to extract the information.

My questions are:

1. How do you react?
2. How should your govt react?
3. Does this fall within the Geneva & Hague Conventions?

1) I'd feel sorry for the poor soul.
2) They'd feel sorry too and keep a clear head. Than they'd surely make clear that they don't descend to the sad, pathetic level of those who use torture to gain next to nothing.
3) This reaction will fall with a 100% certainty within the different conventions on human rights and POW rights...


You Have good points however,1 Eventually we get the truth.2 THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT TORTURE EVERYBODY IT CAPTURES. not even the majority. 3 the point I raised about the treatment of our prisoners to thiers was not adresses. we do not Cut off our prisoners fingers and toes burn them with cigarettes and electrocute them. we dont drill into thier kneecaps with drills either. we waterboard them. we slap them around. hard. we deprive them of sleep. we play heavy metal. we have doctors and psycologists watching to make sure no permanant lasting damage is done. when we are done they are put in a cell and fed.
we dont decapitate them,cover thier bodies with tar and string them up by thier feet.

and about the sh!77y intel we get, how did we find out about the plot to attack LAX? Cheney was talking about it on fox last week Ill try to find an artical. but the info was from one of the men that was waterboarded. How many people did that save?

I would not enjoy being that "little" as I put it however I am not, and never will be in posession of information of an attack on the United States

the fact that Irq is on its way to becoming the second democracy in the middle east, and had its first democratic vote in over 30 years not too long ago id say we are spreading democracy just fine

If we got info that stopped an attack and was giving us names of terrorists in the United States and you took the way to get that info away that is messing with national security. Releasing those memos was a hit to national security, as certain organizations could be using them to recruit new members. yes i realise could be is vauge but it would make a really nice recruitment poster.

As for international Image, I would rather know i am safe than that people like my country. I love my country and I am just Fine if it uses harsher interrogation methods or torture in extreme cases.

And 13th redneck raised a very valid point with my signature, thank you for that I will be changing it. there really wouldent be a point would there?

Originally Posted by Redcell

You Have good points however,1 Eventually we get the truth.2 THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT TORTURE EVERYBODY IT CAPTURES. not even the majority. 3 the point I raised about the treatment of our prisoners to thiers was not adresses. we do not Cut off our prisoners fingers and toes burn them with cigarettes and electrocute them. we dont drill into thier kneecaps with drills either. we waterboard them. we slap them around. hard. we deprive them of sleep. we play heavy metal. we have doctors and psycologists watching to make sure no permanant lasting damage is done. when we are done they are put in a cell and fed.
we dont decapitate them,cover thier bodies with tar and string them up by thier feet.

Interestingly enough I would be prepared to bet that not even Iran, North Korea, China nor in fact any tin pot dictatorship tortures 100% of its prisoners either but it still doesnt stop the west (ironically led by the USA) from condemning these countries when they do torture someone.

So explain to me why any of these countries should take notice of the outcry when that outcry is led by a nation that tortures people itself?

Originally Posted by MontyB

Interestingly enough I would be prepared to bet that not even Iran, North Korea, China nor in fact any tin pot dictatorship tortures 100% of its prisoners either but it still doesnt stop the west (ironically led by the USA) from condemning these countries when they do torture someone.

So explain to me why any of these countries should take notice of the outcry when that outcry is led by a nation that tortures people itself?

Please Name one Prisoner the United States gov. Tortured For political reasons. Please name one person tortured for fun.

If it wasnt for national security it would be wrong. And please nobody say anything like "Well if somebody said massacaring a village was for national security would it be ok? " because there is a limit and it should be strict

and if we are torturing innocent civs the rules should be stricter. but we are not.

And can somebody tell me how we "torture" people? Or is it agreed that torture is short for congress approved enhanced interrogation techniques?

also those countrys should listen because they use torture to keep people in fear of the gov. instead of protecting them from outside threats

Originally Posted by MontyB

So you are saying that our morals are defined by international treaty now?

No I'm not. But when people pull out the Geneva Convention about this issue, this is actually the answer. There is no legal obligation to ensure that these prisoners are treated as prisoners of war.

However, we all know that written law is not the only law out there.

I think Redcell said "sometimes you have to sacrifice a little to save a lot." You could argue that a few lives being lost are worth the sacrifice in order to maintain our higher moral ground. It'll be tough to take, especially if you lose a loved one, but anyone who's been out in the real world will know just how hard it is to be right. Being right can get you at best ostracised in the office and at worst fired and have your name black listed. But doing the right thing has never been easy. If it was, it wouldn't be much of a sought after virtue.
Losing a few more lives may be the sacrifice we have to make in order to be the good guys.
Something to think about.