torture ban

Should the US Ban Torture?

  • Total voters
    8
Duty Honor Country

Duty Honor Country

Active member
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.
 
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.
 
Ted said:
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....)
Click to expand...
Ted, I think your view would hardly be changed from what you've expressed so far. :lol:
In any event, I think that I would have to side with the "it depends" camp at this point. As far as the Geneva Conventions go, I don't think making a torture provision part of the conventions will help to clear the matter up very much. When John McCain and other Americans were taken prisoner during the Vietnam war, North Vietnam justified their mistreatment saying that they never signed the Geneva Conventions. They also claimed that because war was never "officially declared" the Americans would not be treated as POWs but as criminals. That justified the mistreatment in their minds.
As Grimmy said the language is very important. The intent of these conventions is to have all sides of a conflict adhere to them. How could the terrorists we are forced to deal with these days be expected to sign on to anything? They have no country, their leaders are not about to come forward, and terrorism and humane are mutually exclusive terms. That's why I agree with Rabs and Missileer and say it depends on the situation.
 
Well I am not adding anything new to the discussion just saying that it depends on the situation, and that is my opinion.
 
no... torture is the best way to gather enemy intelligence... without it the troops would be left with little to no information and it would be damn hard to get all those terrorist leaders killed...
 
So much for the age of reason eh? Back to the mentality of the Inquisition is it? I'm not surprised as much as disappointed.
 
I do not get it. Tortute is banned under any circunstance (see GC ).

Is the U.S.A trying to spred democracy around the world and justifying torture at the same time? :shock: In my town that is called double morality.
 
Well in my town, what's in the GC is not what's in the laws of the United States and I suspect it's the same in mother Espagna. The question is should the US make a ban on torture a law of our land? Of course, we already have laws of that nature but maybe this will help you understanding of the discussion.
It comes down to whether or not one believes that the ends justify the means. The classic example given in the deontological versus teleological debate is that of the ticking time bomb. Wikipedia has an account of this exact debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_arguments_regarding_torture

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in a opinion article[2] published in The Independent on 23 May 2005 wrote:

The Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argues that in extreme situations, in order to prevent a tragedy, a "torture warrant" should be issued by U.S. courts to use hot needles under the nails, for example. This would make the use open to security, even thought it would be against the Geneva conventions [and other international treaties]. This utilitarian position is both contemptible and persuasive...
Click to expand...
Two academics at Deakin University in Victoria, Australia, Professor Mirko Bagaric who is the head of Deakin University's Law School, and a fellow Deakin law lecturer, Julie Clarke, have submited a paper which is soon to be published in an American law journal, arguing that when many lives are in imminent danger, "all forms of harm" may be inflicted on a suspect, even if this my result in "[[|death|annihilation]]". Both Bagaric and Clarke have begun receiving hate mail from students and staff at Deakin University.

The reasoning behind the proposal to legalise torture is that "as a society we would accept that one person being killed to save thousands is legitimate."
Click to expand...
And so mi amigo, the debate rages on.
 
I'd say depends. I'd also like to have some accurate material on how much information can let you gain.
I mean , all this talk about how torture never really helps gain any information and this and that.
Come on, would it have been used for centuries had it not worked?
As a matter of principle, I'd say no, we should not use it.
When it comes to saving my kids and my house, I might change my mind.
Also, I'd have to draw a line between real torture and psychological pressures, like sleep deprivement, humiliations and others.
 
DTop, I also agree that in certain extreme situations torture would be helpful. But then comes the next question: what´s a extreme situation? This is a very subjetive concept...Will be this issue controlled by a judge?

I do not know, this is a quite complicated issue, but I can not accept that a democracy could use torture to obtein info. From my point of view if a country allows torture it won´t be a democracy anymore.

Dtop, the GC also affects at the US, USA is also a signatary of this Convention.
 
It's kinda funny aint it?

Not one single one of us have the same thing in mind when we discuss whether torture, which is already as illegal as murder in the US, should have another new law outlawing an already outlawed practice, yet, to say we dont need another law seems to be taken as admission that we already do practice torture..or at least plan to.

All this discussion (in congress and on tv, not here) does is inform our enemies on exactly how they can train to defeat Coalition interrogators.

It's already known that terrorists are trained to make acqusations of torture when ever possible with the understanding that the US MSM (main stream media) will pick up that acquastion and spread it without any need for proof or verification.

Torture does not elicit good info, as a general rule. Fear of torture does. The idea that pain and misery is hanging over their heads like a sword of damocles..and is only kept from stabbing down thru them by the kindness of their interrogator is quite often what causes baddies to get up off the info.

By making it public that there will be no real consequence, the baddies know that there is zero reason to cooperate.
Effective use of torture comes in the implying, not in the applying.

edited to add:

All those legislators, politcos and journalists engaging in this "discussion" are in fact aiding and abetting the enemy.
 
Grimmy said:
It's kinda funny aint it?


Torture does not elicit good info, as a general rule. Fear of torture does. The idea that pain and misery is hanging over their heads like a sword of damocles..and is only kept from stabbing down thru them by the kindness of their interrogator is quite often what causes baddies to get up off the info.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%. My problem is that some like the paragons of light and virtue at Amnesty International and some people here will argue that the very act of instilling that fear and apprehension is torture. So for this group in the Rose Colored glasses any thing short of plying Suspected terrorists with milk and cookies will be thought of as torture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top