Truth, justice,

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you beat someone enough that they die, even if they were in a wekended state, then that is torture.  Pure and simple.

<span id='postcolor'>

Well, yeah. But there is nothing in this report that indicates that blunt trauma was the direct cause of the death. The trauma did complicate existing health problems, but that is a different kettle of fish.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am not for a moment suggesting that the US has a systematic policy of torture.  I am just saying that it seems to me that the line of what is and isnt torture is getting pretty blurry.

<span id='postcolor'>

It's always been blurry- I can't watch a police show or movie and not see a guy get slapped once or twice during interrogation. I don't really consider that torture, and here's why:

Torture is a word with a very, very bad connotation. However, depending on your viewpoint, its denotation can be much milder. The act of hitting someone one or two times is not, in my view, a serious breach of civilized conduct, and consequently, should not fall under a heading with as bad a connotation as 'torture'. That means I still think that torture (and when I say torture, I mean extreme methods that result in immediate large amounts of pain and/or permanent/semipermanent harm to the subject) is unjustifiable, I've just narrowed the denotation of torture to match its connotation. I mean, if you talked to a medieval dungeon master and told him that your preferred torture method was to slap your subject once or twice, he'd do a Crocodile Dundee style "That's not a knife" thing, and toss you into an iron maiden or practice his mace skills on your shinbones.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why do you think so ?

This is what is written in the article:

...died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury"...

<span id='postcolor'>

Ever seen people with the above health problems? Jogging half a mile will cause someone with a coronary artery disease to keel over, and just imagine how fun a blood clot in your lung would be. These guys were in a bad way, and even a mild beating (which wasnt necessarily administered by US troops, I might add) could cause their death, especially in a stressful psychological situation. Which brings us to this part:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In case they were injured before the interrogation they had the right on medical treatment. <span id='postcolor'>

Chances are they didn't have anything more than a few bruises, and most of the harm was internal-  (you can't exactly tell a guy is about to have a heart attack). As with many internal injuries, you generally can't tell what's wrong (especially in the field), and if the subject doesn't complain, then no medical help worthy of the name can be administered. If we had known the gravity of their medical situation, I guarantee you we would have tried to save them first, and then interrogate them- that way the intelligence gained would be better in both quality and quality. That's a pretty basic concept that anyone with a foundation in intelligence can grasp, and it speaks volumes of your personal bias that you assume an American special forces soldier would not understand that principle.

[Jinef 2]

It's very amusing all this, in a sad sort of way. How some of you think you are above all else etc.

Colin Powell gives us a fine example of this when he replied to a question about how many Iraqi casuaties were incurred in the Gulf war - "It's not really a number I'm terribly interested in"

Source - http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00006.html

In the Gulf War the RAF lost 7 tornado aircraft to enemy fire. Of the 14 crew 1 died due to SAM fragmentation and

Flight Lieutenant John Peters

Flight Lieutenant Adrian Nichol

Flight Lieutenant Robert Stewart

Flight Lieutenant David Waddington

Squadron Leader Robert Ankerson

Flight Lieutenant Rupert Clark

Flying Officer Simon Burgess.

were all captured and tortured by the Iraqis until the cease fire and prisoner exchange.

Just thought it was slightly relevant.

[IceFire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 10 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

I will be back later if you wish to counter my agrument. <span id='postcolor'>

Which argument ?

Sorry I miss to see ANY point in your post. I only see ignorance, a false attitude towards life and other human beeings. That´s all I can see.<span id='postcolor'>

How am I displaying a false attitude towards other human beings?

I CLEARLY STATED that I felt a country must do what it feels is right for the state, and it's citizens.

We have a right to torture enemy soldiers just as they have the right to torture our soldiers.

We can respond just as they have the same right.

Remember, All's fair in love and war.

A state has a right to soveregnity.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,00:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't "condemn" any of our enemies actions.

They have the right to do those things.

We have the right to despise and hate them.(I know I do)

There are no "levels" here as you stated.   We are their enemies, and they are our enemies.    It is our mutual goals to get at eachother and eventually someone will win.

We will do whatever it takes to find and eradicate these bastards.<span id='postcolor'>

That`s just sick!! Noone has a right to torture anyone. As if war would be an excuse to loose all humanity! You state that total destruction of your enemy is your target. From the way your post is written I guess it doesn`t matter how to achieve this "eradicating of bastards".

I can only repeat myself regarding rules of war, engagement and the Geneva conventions (which are happily kicked into the dust by the USA). Any civilized state should be able to fight it`s armed conflicts according to rules that lead to less unnecessary suffering. I was soldier and will be again (if I succeed in my test as sergeant-wannabe) and I sure would kill for my country and to defend my people. But I`d never torture or kill anyone who surrendered himself to me or who was captured unable to fight further. I`m only doing my job as a soldier if I destroy the enemies ability to do me harm. At the point when an enemy surrenders himself, no matter in which way, I become responsible for his life. So I`ll see that he gets medical aid, food and shelter. And I will deal with him as human being, because he`s also only doing the same task as I do, only on the other side.

And I`m pretty sure that 70-85% of the afghans taken to Guantanamo are only afghans that fought against invasors of their homecountry. Only a little part of them will be AQ or highranking Taliban. So most of them are POW under the protection of human rights and the Geneva convention, but the US denies them that.

You can see the amount of civilisation a state has in the way a state deals with it`s prisoners. The USA is currently betraying all of it`s shiny ideals, that`s a sad thing. The land of the free is no more.

[IceFire 0]

Oh, and Balchiow, and as for US thinking about being superior to other nations.

Well you are the one harping on how us "Western civilized countries" should know better.

That's an air of superiority if I've ever seen it.

[IceFire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 10 2003,01:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,00:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't "condemn" any of our enemies actions.

They have the right to do those things.

We have the right to despise and hate them.(I know I do)

There are no "levels" here as you stated.   We are their enemies, and they are our enemies.    It is our mutual goals to get at eachother and eventually someone will win.

We will do whatever it takes to find and eradicate these bastards.<span id='postcolor'>

That`s just sick!! Noone has a right to torture anyone. As if war would be an excuse to loose all humanity! You state that total destruction of your enemy is your target. From the way your post is written I guess it doesn`t matter how to achieve this "eradicating of bastards".

I can only repeat myself regarding rules of war, engagement and the Geneva conventions (which are happily kicked into the dust by the USA). Any civilized state should be able to fight it`s armed conflicts according to rules that lead to less unnecessary suffering. I was soldier and will be again (if I succeed in my test as sergeant-wannabe) and I sure would kill for my country and to defend my people. But I`d never torture or kill anyone who surrendered himself to me or who was captured unable to fight further. I`m only doing my job as a soldier if I destroy the enemies ability to do me harm. At the point when a enemy surrenders himself, no matter in what way, I become responsible for his life. So I`ll see that he gets medical aid, food and shelter. And I will deal with him as human being, because he`s also only doing the same task as I do, only on the other side.

And I`m pretty sure that 70-85% of the afghans taken to Guantanamo are only afghans that fought against invasors of their homecountry. Only a little part of them will be AQ or highranking Taliban. So they most of them are POW under the protection of human rights and the Geneva convention, but the US denies them that.

You can see the amount of civilisation a state has in the way a state deals with it`s prisoners. The USA is currently betraying all of it`s shiny ideals, that`s a sad thing. The land of the free is no more.<span id='postcolor'>

Fallen Palladin,

I don't think it is "pleasurable" to torture anyone or that it is a GOOD thing.

I am saying that just as a soldier kills an enemy if need be, we should be able to torture the enemy if need be(not just for the hell of it, but if he has information that we could use).

After all, he IS the enemy.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have a right to torture enemy soldiers just as they have the right to torture our soldiers.

<span id='postcolor'>

No.

" .... torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed, or intimidating him or other persons."

(Article 1, UN Declaration Against Torture, 1975)

"No State may permit or tolerate torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. "

(Article 3, UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1975)

But again this doesn´t mean much, does it ?

[IceFire 0]

I am giving my opinion here.

Sure, the rule can say what the rule wants to say.

In my opinion, we should completely withdraw from the Geneva conventions and any other warfare rules.

When you have DECLARED WAR on a country.  All bets are off.

May the best man win.  Atleast that's how it should be.  

It's unnatural to have to figure out the best way to win, and then make sure you follow by the rule too at the same time.

It goes against the nature of war.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In my opinion, we should completely withdraw from the Geneva conventions and any other warfare rules.<span id='postcolor'>

This speaks for itself. No further info needed.

[IceFire 0]

Well I hope you atleast read the rest of my post to understand why I said that.

[Balschoiw 0]

To be honest. No I don´t understand it.

War is always an extreme situation of course. But some basic rules have to be followed. Why ? Cause we are no animals.

I think that if you ever got imprisoned during a war you´ll be very happy to have something like the geneva conventions. For sure they do not represent the actual situation during wars BUT as you might have noticed there are measures and courtsession s after a war and people who disobey even basic rules are sentenced and put to jail. That is ok for me.

The geneva conventions rule out a lot of things. They are in fact a good thing to have if you are a POW.

[IceFire 0]

You can never trust the enemy to follow any conventions.  Never expect them to.  It's ok to be pleasantly surprised if they do.  That's just another advantage to YOU.

"All goes/All's fair in love and war".

"Trying to control a war is like trying to control a hurricane"

"May the best man win"

If I were in a war, I would certainly do WHATEVER it took to get out alive.

I just think that trying to apply RULES of WAR is inherently against the nature of war and what the soldier is trying to accomplish.

"War conventions", They're just a psychological mind state that contradicts the laws of survival.

Remember, There's nothing more absolute in life than love, war, and death.

[Llauma 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,01:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can never trust the enemy to follow any conventions.  Never expect them to.  It's ok to be pleasantly surprised if they do.  That's just another advantage to YOU.

"All goes/All's fair in love and war".

"Trying to control a war is like trying to control a hurricane"

"May the best man win"

If I were in a war, I would certainly do WHATEVER it took to get out alive.

I just think that trying to apply RULES of WAR is inherently against the nature of war and what the soldier is trying to accomplish.

"War conventions", They're just a psychological mind state that contradicts the laws of survival.

Remember, There's nothing more absolute in life than love, war, and death.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm trying to undertand how you think but I can't...

You have indeed a mind of a very sick person.

I have never seen such a naive and narrow minded person.

War is not chaos.. It's always controlled by some men.

[Aaron Kane 0]

Well I hope you learned your lesson Icefire. Never stand up for your beliefs. At least not in public.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">" .... torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed, or intimidating him or other persons."

(Article 1, UN Declaration Against Torture, 1975)

<span id='postcolor'>

I love the UN. No other organization I know of can condmen torture in such broad terms, and then elect Libya to chair the Human Rights Committee. Makes you wonder why some people aren't big fans...

[IceFire 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Mar. 10 2003,02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,01:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can never trust the enemy to follow any conventions.  Never expect them to.  It's ok to be pleasantly surprised if they do.  That's just another advantage to YOU.

"All goes/All's fair in love and war".

"Trying to control a war is like trying to control a hurricane"

"May the best man win"

If I were in a war, I would certainly do WHATEVER it took to get out alive.

I just think that trying to apply RULES of WAR is inherently against the nature of war and what the soldier is trying to accomplish.

"War conventions", They're just a psychological mind state that contradicts the laws of survival.

Remember, There's nothing more absolute in life than love, war, and death.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm trying to undertand how you think but I can't...

You have indeed a mind of a very sick person.

I have never seen such a naive and narrow minded person.

War is not chaos.. It's always controlled by some men.<span id='postcolor'>

Excuse me, I have the mind of a very sick person????

I would like to know how you justify that comment because I take offense to that.

I am not sick, and you should certainly not make that judgement after only reading a few posts from me in one thread.

I am just a patriot who is wants to see our country secure. These terrorists that we capture are clearly our enemies, and would be willing to kill you, me all our families for their cause.

I see NO harm in harming them to win a war against terrorists and safegaurd the state.

You be damn careful before calling someone "sick, naive, and narrow minded".

War is not chaos.. It's always controlled by some men.

Tell that to the soldiers in the wars. Or try reading some accounts of soldiers.

[Badgerboy 0]

Balschoiw, he's obviously never served in uniform. He wouldn't/doesn't understand.

(Icefire) I once met a person like you (Same views and ideas), and he was a bitter bastard too. Go and talk to someone who's been a POW and explain your views. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy chinned you, and left it at that.

Lets hope he never gets into a position of power eh?

[USMC Sniper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,01:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am giving my opinion here.

Sure, the rule can say what the rule wants to say.

In my opinion, we should completely withdraw from the Geneva conventions and any other warfare rules.

When you have DECLARED WAR on a country.  All bets are off.

May the best man win.  Atleast that's how it should be.  

It's unnatural to have to figure out the best way to win, and then make sure you follow by the rule too at the same time.

It goes against the nature of war.<span id='postcolor'>

Holy shit man, no offense, but that's a pretty screwed up opinion. The Geneva convention restricts the use of inhumane weapons (napalm, flamethrowers, etc) , torture (i think), etc. With that opinion, you are fully supporting Nazi tortures and genocide of Jews, things that the NKVD did to people, the tortures in prisions in NK, etc. May the best man win? So if I wanted to kill you, then we can legally try to murder each other in any way we want? I don't understand your opinion.   So your saying that, in war, it's ok for me to run up to you (for example) and flamethrower you and your friends, burning you alive. Then I can call in a plane to drop fire on a village, burning every person alive, because I suspected there were enemies there. Then I'll take my .50 caliber rifle and shoot up enemy soldiers, ripping off their limbs with each shot. That's not right for anyone to think.

[Mr. Snrub 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 10 2003,09:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have a right to torture enemy soldiers just as they have the right to torture our soldiers.

<span id='postcolor'>

No.

" .... torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of a public official on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or confession, punishing him for an act he has committed, or intimidating him or other persons."

(Article 1, UN Declaration Against Torture, 1975)

"No State may permit or tolerate torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. "

(Article 3, UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1975)

But again this doesn´t mean much, does it ?<span id='postcolor'>

Correct 110%

IceFire, I can understand that you think the U.S. has some fundamental right, as a sovereign nation, to (pre-emptively) defend itself, and that this right transcends moral and ethical limits (ie. includes the use of torture - which I don't agree with at all), but you have to understand that nations automatically relinquish some of their sovereignty when they agree to obey international law (the Geneva Convention for example). The U.S. has agreed to such rules and regulations, and therefore gives up its 'right' to torture prisoners, POWs etc. This is how the international community works, and should work.

The United States cannot pick and choose which rules it chooses to follow, contrary to international law - while denouncing other countries that do that same. If you want to live in the neighbourhood, you have to play by the rules, no matter how powerful you are.

The basis of the U.S. argument to go to war (well one of them, it seems to change from week to week) is to rid Iraq of Saddam's oppressive regime - one that systematically tortures, murders and rapes its citizens (and POWs, as seen in the Gulf War). To laud torture as an acceptable means of gaining information is as hypocritical as you can get. By torturing captured prisoners, the difference between the Iraqi dictatorship and the U.S. government becomes ever smaller.

Please don't say that I would change my tune if my country were attacked as the US was on 9/11 (as horrendous as it was). I would much rather my country apprehend terrorists using the values that make my country the free, democratic country it is.

Physical and mental torture should not be differentiated either - most of us cannot comprehend what mental torture must be like, so its fairly naive to assume its that much 'better' than physical torture.

Torture is the lowest, most repulsive act a human can perform.

Please have a read of this article, and pay close attention to the last sentance...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp....0116467

[IceFire 0]

Ok, apparently a whole bunch of you misunderstood me.

I don't condone practices such as whole scale slaughter such as what the Nazi's did or what N.Korea is doing.

I Made it clear that I was referring to war time against "enemies" or enemy combattants.  

People, I can't stress enough to fully read and understand WHAT I AM POSTING before assuming you try to understand WHAT I MEAN.

Oh, and Badgerboy, ofcourse some POW would disagree with me.  He was a recipient of torture.   He's going to have heavy emotional hangups.  But if the information we get from torturing an enemy POW could be invaluable in saving hundreds of innocent lives.

[IceFire 0]

I understand that all these things I am saying are HORRIBLE things.

WAR IS A HORRIBLE THING.

With war comes HORRIBLE things that MUST be done in order to win.

I do not wish these things upon ANYONE, but in wartime, somethings NEED to be done inorder to SAVE your countrymens lives in the future, and to save your own.

[Mr. Snrub 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Mar. 10 2003,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I Made it clear that I was referring to war time against "enemies" or enemy combattants.<span id='postcolor'>

Makes not a bit of difference - if you torture POWs or use cruel/inhumane weapons against enemy soldiers, you are still committing what amounts to a war-cime.

Radovan Karadzic and Pol Pot (among others) used the same tactics to achieve their political/military goals - what would differentiate the U.S. from these guys? Good intentions?

[Frizbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I stated that torture for NATIONAL DEFENSE OR FOR THE GOOD OF THE STATE.

This philosophy comes from the inherent belief that each state has the right to soveriegnty.

As for torturing your own citizens, that's a completely different thing.

<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly Icefire. That's wrong. Especially when you look at the world as it is today, and see that Bush is pushing for a war in Iraq with his allies for reasons of "National Defence"

What exactly is National Defence? By your thinking, the U.S. has the right to torture every single Iraqi civilian until they find those they are looking for, get the weapons dismantled that they want, and so forth.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Yes sure, except sleep depravation becomes torture and then a risk of death. In my view, depriving someone of sleep for more than 3-4 days is torture... and it is in fact medically just as bad as any other physical abuse. <span id='postcolor'>

No, prevention of sleep is detrimental to your health. Without any REM sleep after 5 days you start hallucinating, and then you start going crazy.

Sleep deprevation is not preventing all sleep. They do this in every military special forces training course I have heard of. Waking people up at all hours of the night, using any means neccessary. In the case of these prisoners, it would be loud noises, and switching on bright lights.

Not all of these would be deliberate either. If they were dealing with a situation in a cell, they would require backup, which means lots of light and lots of noise. Not everyone is a heavy sleeper.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It doesn´t say that they had a car accident prior to their interrogation. In case they were injured before the interrogation they had the right on medical treatment. The US is no mambo-jumbo country that doesn´t have to follow international rights and law. And even POW´s have rights. At least the right for life. The soldiers took away this rights and I really hope they and the ones responsible for the deaths will be hunted down as the ones that took the valuable lifes of US citizens. <span id='postcolor'>

It also doesn't say those injuries WERE caused by the soliders. It just inferes that. The term "Journalistic Integrity" means nothing these days, they print headlines to get papers sold, not to convey the news. In all probability the injuries WERE caused before transfer to Cuba, and could even have been self-inflicted, or inflicted by other prisoners. Don't be so quick to stand against the soliders until it is proven they were beaten to death by those people. THEN appropriate punishment for those soldiers would be in order.

I found those UN Declarations against torture ammusing. On one hand it says they can't use torture, but on the other, it says they can. But then, the UN doesn't enforce ANYTHING it says. Iraq = Exhibit A.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It's unnatural to have to figure out the best way to win, and then make sure you follow by the rule too at the same time. <span id='postcolor'>

The Rules are there for a reason. Some of them are stupid Yes. But the Geneva Convention protects only Prisoner's of War. It's not the rulebook that ties the hands of the officers, at least not until after the enemy have dropped their weapons and surrendered. Look at the Japanese during WW2. That is an example of the horror when the Geneva convention is abandoned by a country.

In the end, I think the problem with this entire discussion is that there are so many views of what torture is. And for or against in this argument, there are too many variables between each point of view.

I agree with interrogation techniques such as sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and limited usage of drugs as I have already stated. I would also not hesitate to kneecap a person if I had to keep them captive on my own, and they tried to escape. I don't view that as torture... (though the knee-capping is an extreme, and not for every day use ;-) )

But physically abusing someone, beating them, pulling teeth, electrocutions, splinters under the nails, removal of skin, burning eyes etc... there are few if any, reasons that that sort of torture (and that IS torture) would be necessary.

[IceFire 0]

I don't think any of you are making a distinction between torture to get valuable information, and torture just for the hell of it.

Torturing is inherently NOT a good thing which is why it WOULD be wrong to do it WITHOUT a purpose.

I am talking about torture for a purpose. For the purpose for a war, for national security, for SAVING LIVES.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, apparently a whole bunch of you misunderstood me.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh we understand all right. And thats why we are so disgusted.