The debate is picking up here in the US. I was amused at the guy sitting in on the Savage Nation radio show. Who ever he was gave McCain a broadside ranking him with the ultra left. Since McCain got the crap beat out of him while he spent 6 years in a POW camp in Vietnam, I believe the man is allowed to speak his mind about torture with out critisism. His defence is solid. All he has to say is "have you been starved, beaten, face kicked in, bones broken and recieved little medical care for 6 years." I read his book. Its a must read.

Anyways, I am bringing this debate to the forums. Should we ban torture?

I dont think we should ban it, but it should only be used in extreme cases such as for example.

"Theres a nuclear weapon in a US city, were is it?"

Although im a fan of Savage, his show can sometime cross the line.

depends

My response is DOTS. It depends on the situation. There is some justification in the argument that Rabs makes, however I am inclined to say that I would be opposed to torture in almost all cases.

I believe torture should be banned. There is no way to guarantee the veracity of someone's statements made in order to make the pain stop. You are prone to end up with innocent people ignorant of what they're being questioned or fanatics who won't break and all you do is sully your own soul by perpetrating the acts of torture upon them.

I have read McCain's book as well as others who have been prisoners and tortured and also a couple books by repentant purveyors of torture and no one escapes that situation intact.

As a former US Marine that OJT'd with 2nd ITU for awhile I can tell you point blank that torture is already outlawed in the US.

What's happening now tho is that the concept of "torture" is becoming tortured into nonsense.


There are those that will use this "new" law to claim that USA can not even detain terror suspects because such detainment is outlawed as torture in and of itself.

This question can not be asked before the definition of exactly what is and is not torture is fully and completely established.

Who's definition will it be? There are many and varied.

It already has been defined as I understand it they are pressing to make the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war US law. And to guarantee that protection even to the prisoners being held in legal limbo neither prisoners of war nor prisoners under US law. I hate legalspeak and the twisting of definitions, it makes my head hurt.

actually, the GC is pretty vague on what exactly is and is not torture.

If we're gonna make it a new law, then we've dang well better have every possible eye dotted and tee crossed and a very solid set of definitions.

If not then we might as well also outlaw rain on baseball days.

There's also this. By completing the necessary defining process, we'll also be letting our enemies know EXACTLY how far an interogator can go. We'll also pretty much shut down any and all recruiting into the interrogation field due to serious potential of arbitrary legal actions.

And, I'd be almost willing to bet a months salary that the majority of those currently skilled in interogation will bail in a heart beat.

So, basically, I guess it's time for me to come out and admit that I fully and truely believe this attempt at legislation to be a direct aid and support to our enemy.

I also filled in "depends". If you start to use torture as a means of extracting information... well please don't believe that you're doing this in the name of human rights and freedom for all.

We all know that North Korea uses torture and nobody seems surprised. Then again, they never claimed to do this to spread "freedom for all". If the US starts to use this method of acquiring information, well I guess I'll have to alter my view on the Home of the free (and brave....)

Depends on the Situation. Psycological torture though. Breaking down independant will, and getting anything you want out of them. Tehn if you have to execute them for anything, they gallows/chair/etc not just showing defeat but being defeated. Their minds tell them its all over and that they were wrong.