Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Warin

Truth, justice,

Recommended Posts

Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 10 2003,16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 10 2003,16:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Using the Nazis as an example is misguiding since they are the ikon of evil in our culture.<span id='postcolor'>

But in your posts above, you give another impression.

If you would be right in killing Hitler, then what would be wrong in torturing one of his underlings who refuses to talk and knows lifesaving information?<span id='postcolor'>

The situation isn't realistic. If I knew that it would save innocent lives then it would be no problem. If you knew that the person you torture had that information, it would be justifiable. But you don't. The option you have is of systematically torturing all the POWs and I cannot agree with such a policy. I would not condone the torture of thousands innocents to potentially save other innocents lives.

The situation discussed here, with suspected terrorists, we don't know that they have any information or that they are even terrorists. Even if they are terrorists, there is no way of knowing if they have some valuable information. How many people are you ready to torture to death to get information that could perhaps save innocent lives?

Systematically torturing enemy POWs regardless of what information they might or might not hold is the same as torturing innocent civlians. It's not justifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 10 2003,15:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah, so you would let potentially 100s of 1000s of people die because it's not right to stuff a wet sock down the mouth of a Nazi who likely knows what you need to know to save those people?

If so, that to me is the epitomy of self righteousness.<span id='postcolor'>

Where would you put the limits?

1 potential victim, 10, 1000, 1 million? Or maybe saving some time or 10$?  wow.gif

This sounds to me like the justice of the winner. He can always justify anything because it helped to defeat the evil enemy.

It is not okay, to justify one evil with another...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I want to redirect the question to you Avon. Hypothetically speaking:

1) Would you support the right of the IDF to torture random Palestinian civilians to get information on suicide-bombers?

2) Would you support the right of the IDF to torture random Palestinian civilians to get information on suicide-bombers if it would mean that more innocents would be saved then innocent would be tortured?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 10 2003,17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I want to redirect the question to you Avon. Hypothetically speaking:

1) Would you support the right of the IDF to torture random Palestinian civilians to get information on suicide-bombers?<span id='postcolor'>

Random? Never! I never gave an example of random. Go back and read my example carefully.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Would you support the right of the IDF to torture random Palestinian civilians to get information on suicide-bombers if it would mean that more innocents would be saved then innocent would be tortured?<span id='postcolor'>

Same answer as above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[EDIT- Damnit i wish people would stop typing when i go away for 5 minutes to let me catch up! people got there before me-EDIT]

First there is the question of numbers. At what point do certain terrible behaviours (such as torture ) become permissable......how many peoples lives must be at stake to make it ok to torture people, or kill them in cold blood?

There is a basic right of self defence recognised by the majority of people that if someone tries to kill you then you can defend yourself (if necessary killing them). But at what point does a nations right of self defence legitimize torture of the enemy?

Im still not exactly sure. I can sympathise with the view that torture (beyond light stuff) is never justified, but at the same time it is easy to imagine feeling the opposite way in certain extreme situations.

This is an especially important question for a nation claiming to be based on an idea that all people have a right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness (even if that is only technically applicable to US citizens)

It would be the ultimate hypocrisy for the US to begin regularly torturing foreign people who threatened the state.

Isnt that the kind of thing the founding fathers of that country

accused the British King of ?(for the most part in incorrect  propaganda as a matter of historical fact wink.gif )

And cited  as a reason to break with the homeland and become independant?

Along with being above the law, criminal abuse of authority etc all of these accusations could argueably be leveled at the US administration (to a greater or lesser extent)

although i think that states it maybe a little too strongly thats none the less the way things appear to be moving with the possibility of state sponsored torture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IceFire, a couple of days ago an Iraqi citizen was interviewed in a Swedish newspaper. He had been severely tortured for days, for selling camera film to a journalist. The secret police SUSPECTED he was involved in activities against the state. In fact, he was just a regular salesman. This did not prevent them from hurting him in ways I cannot describe on this forum.

You are in fact saying that they had the right to do that, since they were protecting their state and their people against a suspected enemy agent / terrorist.

I find it sad that a person who is a part of a democratic and free society can accept such things. I also find it scary, because that means that people like you would accept oppression and murder of innocent people. All in the name of the state. Sounds a bit Nazi like to me. No trials, no jurys, just the state and its troopers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this was always going to be an emotive issue and I'm not sure how much I can add. I think nobody has the right to torture another. The hypothetical gains and costs can be discussed until the end of time, I have to just say that wrong is always wrong and anybody who considers themselves one of the good guys can never afford to cross that line.

It may be an interesting parallel to point out that our current mess is a result of the west supporting Saddam Hussain as the lesser of two evils during the Iran/Iraq war. Now we find out infact that evil is still evil and we're paying the price for what our governments did then. I think if we descend to the levels of torture there will be a steep price to pay in years to come.

The test of a country / government should be not how it treats the best but how it treats the worst and we in the west cannot afford to fail that test now or in the future if we are to have any claim to be champions of peace or liberty.

The other point that always sticks in my mind at times like this was from an interview with a british intelligence officer during WWII. He specialised in getting information from German prisoners and was a world authority at the time. I will always remember his steadfast insistance that to get reliable information you first needed the prisoners trust. In an emergancy, sleep deprivation might be required if time was a factor. Torture however did not work. If you torture you lose trust, if you lose trust you get nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, physical torture doesn't work as the person will admit to anything to stop the pain.

Using Mental interogation methods, sleep deprivation etc. (Those methods that don't cause physical pain) ARE effective however.

A person in severe pain will often retreat to a single memory (like the Life flashing before the eyes stereotype of dying) in order to shut out the pain. That gives you no information as they won't listen to anything else.

A person who is extremely tired or confused will tend to reveal information in small doses, with everything they say. A word here, a name there...

Occassionally they will spill everything they know too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, now I see it.

How about this? Next time we beat up one of his friends if we got more of them. If there are enough, we might also threaten him to kill his friends one by one. Of course, we must proof our willingness to do so, by killing one immediatly...

Or this: Lets rape his wife and daughters in front of him. That won't hurt him physically as well.

You just fail to see the problem. If you allow this behaviour to become regular practice, then it will sooner or later happen, that someone pushes the limits a bit further from time to time, reasoning that it is just a little violation of the current practice, and, of course, it was absolutely neccessary under the given circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WhoCares-There is no real proof that the americans beat these guys up. And killing a person to prove they mean it or raping wives and daughters (who in any case would be hard to get hold of) is not a LITTLE violation. Although some army rapes did happen in Vietnam i cant begin to imagine the US forces regularly using rape as an aid to interrogation. Thats just sick. The same goes for summary execution of prisoners. They may be slapping people up a little (which is not ideal), but i cant see american forces pulling fingernails out or abusing relatives any time soon, and if you think its likely then you need to take a reality check.

(although as i said earlier im not naive to the possibility that if there was a great immediate threat to US lives its possible some hardcore CIA people might break the rules or more likely -what has already happened- they turn them over to third parties (eg individual afghans) or third world countries that DO use torture)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't get my point.

I don't care whether they beat them up or 'just' denied medical care - they are dead. And these are just the cases that became public. How many more tortures happened, where the victim survived and so we don't hear about those?!

Maybe it is already more or less common practice that POWs are tortured, and now someone 'allowed' even that POWs died because of it. So, obviously there was a new border crossed. And when we don't stop it now and just let it happen, somebody will cross the next sooner or later.

Just read this thread. There is already a silent approval to certain kinds of torture. Sooner or later, somebody will push this limits further.

Edit: Just to note, those examples were meant as exaggerations and not as what I would american soldiers expect to do tomorrow. And about this family stuff - I could imagine that you would also interrogate his family as they might also have valuable informations, when you capture a terrorist leader at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out these cute torture smiles i found!

boxe.gifspanking.gif1042142750.gif1039607312.gifsmash.gifboxing.gif

Marvin: I already told you I don't know anything about any fucking setup; you can torture me all you want.

Mr. Blonde: Torture you? That's a good idea. I like that.

lol, love that movie.

-=Die Alive=-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope this topic isn't too old...

Quote[/b] ]

US plans death camp

News.com.AU [AU]

May 26, 2003

THE US has floated plans to turn Guantanamo Bay into a death camp, with its own death row and execution chamber.

Prisoners would be tried, convicted and executed without leaving its boundaries, without a jury and without right of appeal, The Mail on Sunday newspaper reported yesterday.

The plans were revealed by Major-General Geoffrey Miller, who is in charge of 680 suspects from 43 countries, including two Australians.

The suspects have been held at Camp Delta on Cuba without charge for 18 months.

General Miller said building a death row was one plan. Another was to have a permanent jail, with possibly an execution chamber.

The Mail on Sunday reported the move is seen as logical by the US, which has been attacked worldwide for breaching the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war since it established the camp at a naval base to hold alleged terrorists from Afghanistan.

But it has horrified human rights groups and lawyers representing detainees.

They see it as the clearest indication America has no intention of falling in line with internationally recognised justice.

The US has already said detainees would be tried by tribunals, without juries or appeals to a higher court. Detainees will be allowed only US lawyers.

British activist Stephen Jakobi, of Fair Trials Abroad, said: "The US is kicking and screaming against any pressure to conform with British or any other kind of international justice."

American law professor Jonathan Turley, who has led US civil rights group protests against the military tribunals planned to hear cases at Guantanamo Bay, said: "It is not surprising the authorities are building a death row because they have said they plan to try capital cases before these tribunals.

"This camp was created to execute people. The administration has no interest in long-term prison sentences for people it regards as hard-core terrorists."

Britain admitted it had been kept in the dark about the plans.

A Downing St spokesman said: "The US Government is well aware of the British Government's position on the death penalty."

Herald Sun

Just making room for more prisoners.

-=Die Alive=-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a reputable news source verifying this claim. As stupid as the Bush Administration is, I cant see anything like htis actually being done. Public outcry in the US would be HUGE if something like this came to pass.

Until I see something a little more reputable and substantial, I am going to pass this off as cheap sensationalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Until I see something a little more reputable and substantial, I am going to pass this off as cheap sensationalism.

God I hope so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My rule of thumb about "news" on the internet, nomatter who it is, its probably not true or been modified in some way. Even news on the TV is bullshit. Other than a few exceptions (9-11 attacks, Exxon Valdese, suicide bombings, natural disasters) its been changed so much that it isn't the whole truth. Reporting will always make mistakes or get facts incorrect. I just looked at my yearbook for example, and I was amazed about how the school reporters misquoted and miswrote many events and people. They couldn't even get the football schedule right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see a reputable news source verifying this claim.  As stupid as the Bush Administration is, I cant see anything like htis actually being done.  Public outcry in the US would be HUGE if something like this came to pass.

Until I see something a little more reputable and substantial, I am going to pass this off as cheap sensationalism.

I see it that way, too. The TBA is evil and corrupt and moneyattracted. Factory-like killing of prisoners would be a totally different thing. If they really did such a thing there should be severe consequences, because then they really would stand aside all the evil dictators in history. But the magical word is if. We`ll see, will we?

rock.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was actually quite shocked. Then i saw two special words 'daily' and 'mail'. Synonyns include 'cheap' 'sensationalists' (as Warin percieved)

Major-General Geoffrey Miller probably mentioned one sentence about the theoretical possibility of establishing a death chamber as an alternative to moving prisoners elsewhere in the event of an execution arising or something like that and the Daily Mail would go with "Yanks Plan Barbaric Death Camp For Brit Victims!"

Still whilst i doubt theyll be executing people anytime soon whover said ANYTHING along these lines cocked up bigtime and it is pretty shocking that it might be even considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Other than a few exceptions (9-11 attacks, Exxon Valdese, suicide bombings, natural disasters) its been changed so much that it isn't the whole truth.<

Are you sure you got the whole truth on these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think they wouldn't torture us if they had the chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think they wouldn't torture us if they had the chance?

Quite possibly - so that makes it OK? If others are doing despicable things, it makes it alright for you to do them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You think they wouldn't torture us if they had the chance?

Who wouldn't torture you if they had the chance? tounge_o.gif Ok just kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Quite possibly - so that makes it OK? If others are doing despicable things, it makes it alright for you to do them?

Why should we be bound by rules that they're not subject to? Surely you want the US to have the upper hand fighting these terrorists, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×