US torturing terror suspects? - Page 15




 
--
 
December 21st, 2005  
tielir999
 
Before capturing them we were trying to kill them and them us. So i dont see why torturing them is that big of a deal. To some people it is to me its not.
December 21st, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tielir999
Before capturing them we were trying to kill them and them us. So i dont see why torturing them is that big of a deal. To some people it is to me its not.
What made me somewhat baffled is the very early comment about people being treated by terrorists saying they were treat rather nicly, when truthfully these people lob everyone's head off on TV.
December 21st, 2005  
hopefulfuturemarine
 
If tourture is effective for getting info, why is it so controversial?
Hopeful
--
December 21st, 2005  
Welshwarrior
 
 
On the otherhand, there is the argument that a person will confess to anything just to stop the pain? I see no justification for torture by any country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sven hassell
So what! War is war. Who can say that their interrogations havnt got out of hand at some point?
Torture is a tool of war.Always has been.Always will be.
Torture has never been a tool of modern warfare. I refer you to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention and as far as US law is concerned in the 8th amendment which states that cruel and unusual punishment shall not be used against prisoners. Of course, one would be quick to point out that the US Constitution does not pertain to non-US citizens. Not to mention the "murkiness" of the phrase "cruel and unusual".
December 21st, 2005  
The Cooler King
 
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the opening of the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal." What gives us the right to torture other human beings?
December 21st, 2005  
Welshwarrior
 
 
Maybe because absolute power corrupts absolutely? When you are the biggest guy on the block and you no longer have any morals, you can do what you want, to who you want, when you want. So the little guys will also complain and condenm the big guy, and that is it. Until of course the little guys form a gang......
December 21st, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welshwarrior
Maybe because absolute power corrupts absolutely? When you are the biggest guy on the block and you no longer have any morals, you can do what you want, to who you want, when you want. So the little guys will also complain and condenm the big guy, and that is it. Until of course the little guys form a gang......
I will agree with this as a principal of what the US Military can or cannot do with prisoners. But its completely hypocritical for any complaints to originate from the extremist groups who have no qualms about doing really really terrible things to people they capture. Sorting out what "cruel and unusual" and "torture" equate to is the most important thing. There are many things that could be called "torture" that should be allowed.

To say that "torture is complete obsolete in modern history" is false. Technically, any method of extracting information that the prisoner is unwilling to divulge could qualify as "torture". I think that the Geneva Conventions is the only applicable rullset that can be used, yet some of that is crap that nobody adheres to anyways, quite frankly.

Still, we must be aware that the World expects a helluva lot more from the USA than they do from Extremists. We have the moral high-ground unless we surrender it.
December 22nd, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
I want to say that I am not against making a POW uncomfortable but torture, in my book its simplified as anything that leaves a scar or takes a life, is not acceptable for any reason. I could post up the reasons for this but I found an Army captain's paper on-line that sums it up better than I could so here it is...

http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE98/PFAFF98.htm
December 22nd, 2005  
Welshwarrior
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
I will agree with this as a principal of what the US Military can or cannot do with prisoners. But its completely hypocritical for any complaints to originate from the extremist groups who have no qualms about doing really really terrible things to people they capture. Sorting out what "cruel and unusual" and "torture" equate to is the most important thing. There are many things that could be called "torture" that should be allowed.

To say that "torture is complete obsolete in modern history" is false. Technically, any method of extracting information that the prisoner is unwilling to divulge could qualify as "torture". I think that the Geneva Conventions is the only applicable rullset that can be used, yet some of that is crap that nobody adheres to anyways, quite frankly.

Still, we must be aware that the World expects a helluva lot more from the USA than they do from Extremists. We have the moral high-ground unless we surrender it.
To a lot of people in Europe, you have already surrendered the moral high ground and have now become the biggest bully on the block. That statement will now of course expose me to all kinds of hate posts and ridicule, but hey what are friends for?


A friend means well, even when he hurts you. But when an enemy puts his hand round your shoulder... watch out!
-- Proverbs, 27:6.

December 22nd, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
I think most are aware that the opinion you've mentioned is widespread. I do think that the USA is doing a lot to root out the bad things, and punish the offending parties. One sad fact of life is that wars tend to lead people to do terrible things no matter how noble or principled their leaders are. There's gonna be a few bad eggs in the mix and their going to do some things they weren't supposed to do. This is probably unavoidable. What is avoidable is any hint of encouragement by military leaders for soldiers to use torture.

My main point remains: We need to define the word torture. If we go with bulldogg's definition: "Anything that leaves a scar or takes a life." then it is 100% unacceptable. If its failing to cater to a prisoner's every need and desire, well la de frickin da!