What are your thoughts on torture?

[Minor Axis]

Torture is defined by the UN as anything capable of causing permanent physical damage.

You speak as if you were an authority. :smiley24:

Waterboarding.
In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates a gag reflex almost immediately.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[14]

Torture and International Law

The War Crimes Act of 1966 (18 USC Section 2441) prohibits any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions.

The Third Geneva Convention states that prisoners of war must always be "humanely treated" (Article 13) and prohibits "physical and mental torture, [and] any other form of coercion" (Article 18).

The Fourth Geneva Convention states that civilian prisoners must be protected from "cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" (Article 3).

We Could Have Done This The Right Way, a Newsweek article on where we went wrong with torture.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

You speak as if you were an authority. :smiley24:

Waterboarding.
In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates a gag reflex almost immediately.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[14]

Torture and International Law

The War Crimes Act of 1966 (18 USC Section 2441) prohibits any "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions.

The Third Geneva Convention states that prisoners of war must always be "humanely treated" (Article 13) and prohibits "physical and mental torture, [and] any other form of coercion" (Article 18).

The Fourth Geneva Convention states that civilian prisoners must be protected from "cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" (Article 3).

We Could Have Done This The Right Way, a Newsweek article on where we went wrong with torture.

I paraphrased...Shuddup

Bottom line is this, we are the only country that pays any attention to the Geneva Convention, and for you to think that we don't use coercive tactics to get information is naive.

It's also dangerous to think you can be a military stronghold, and not break a few kneecaps with ball peen hammers.

If you want to lie down and give up, just move to France.....They started a long time ago

 

[GameCrazed]

Good assumption:

OK, common sense time(and you don't even need Government-approved memos!). Torture is when pain is purposefully inflicted on another. Drowning is painfull. Waterboarding is a calculated, and thus more precise form of simulated drowning. The pain caused is more precise, taking direct affect(makes sense, don't it?).

What's your argument against that? That it doesn't cause physical damage? Considering that drowning kills you, it's pretty obvious that it does physical damage.

It's low on physical pain? Then why are they giving up this information, I wonder? And there is such a thing as psychological pain. Fear is a part of that.

Their minds shut down? Look, if someone's mind shuts down they're not really good at talking to, are they? So I'd say they're atleast concious enough to know what's going on.

"Now, did I say you're a liberal? No, I did not. I said you may have been easily lead by the liberal media. But your response to my posts confirms my assertion about the ignorant part."

Fine then, you made an assumption and I made an assumption about your assumption, I'll be nice and say were both equal-idiots on that part. : D

 

[Tim]

I paraphrased...Shuddup

Bottom line is this, we are the only country that pays any attention to the Geneva Convention, and for you to think that we don't use coercive tactics to get information is naive.

It's also dangerous to think you can be a military stronghold, and not break a few kneecaps with ball peen hammers.

If you want to lie down and give up, just move to France.....They started a long time ago

Am I naive that we use coercive tactics from time to time? Nope... but it's a completely different thing to say that our government is willing to break the law and torture as a matter of policy. When you actually sit down and have legal memos written in order to get around the rule of law, that's when you crossed the line. We are a nation of laws and that's what makes us better, and when we are willing to ignore our laws and basic human rights, it goes against everything we base our society on.

If we lose some of our citizens to terrorist attacks because we need to follow the laws in acquiring information, then so be it.

This is my response from the other thread, and I feel it works in this context as well...

I love the fact that those who are the first to wrap themselves in the flag and point the finger at "unpatriotic" Americans are the same ones who hardheartedly support torture.

A true patriot of this country will follow the rule of law whether it's easy to do so, or hard. You don't just throw out our laws to achieve your objectives, you follow them even when it hurts. That's what makes us a great nation.

And that pathetic argument justifying torture because we are dealing with people who would have no problem beheading our citizens completely lacks merit. Our laws do not contain caveats that pertain only to certain people... it protects all. And once again, this is what makes us a great nation.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Am I naive that we use coercive tactics from time to time? Nope... but it's a completely different thing to say that our government is willing to break the law and torture as a matter of policy. When you actually sit down and have legal memos written in order to get around the rule of law, that's when you crossed the line. We are a nation of laws and that's what makes us better, and when we are willing to ignore our laws and basic human rights, it goes against everything we base our society on.

If we lose some of our citizens to terrorist attacks because we need to follow the laws in acquiring information, then so be it.

This is my response from the other thread, and I feel it works in this context as well...

What I am saying is I have no issue dunking them in water

Cutting off fingers, drilling holes in kneecaps, different story. I mean we know it goes on though

 

[Tim]

What I am saying is I have no issue dunking them in water

Cutting off fingers, drilling holes in kneecaps, different story. I mean we know it goes on though

So you are against torture, but you don't consider water boarding torture.

 

[Alien Allen]

So you are against torture, but you don't consider water boarding torture.

That would be correct. If waterboarding is done as outlined in those memos.

You did not say if you ever read them. It is pretty tedious long read but is well thought out.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

So you are against torture, but you don't consider water boarding torture.

I don't consider water boarding torture.

Here is what I know, based on very reliable information:

"In Vietnam, you'd be amazed at what you could get out of a NVC Regular foot soldier...Immediately after he sees his sargent pushed from a helicopter."

So I guess what I'm saying is Americans have sat quietly by all these years, enjoying freedom that many people have died to protect. And never questioned how, face it warfare is something most of us never want to deal with, so I guess in lieu of waterboarding we can just kill them....That would solve a lot of problems too.

If you release them back to the wild, they'll just wind up getting shelled by a helicopter, or gunned down by one of our snipers.

You know, death the "humane" way

 

[Tim]

That would be correct. If waterboarding is done as outlined in those memos.

You did not say if you ever read them. It is pretty tedious long read but is well thought out.

Yes I read the memos, yes I still believe that water boarding is torture

I don't consider water boarding torture.

Here is what I know, based on very reliable information:

"In Vietnam, you'd be amazed at what you could get out of a NVC Regular foot soldier...Immediately after he sees his sargent pushed from a helicopter."

So I guess what I'm saying is Americans have sat quietly by all these years, enjoying freedom that many people have died to protect. And never questioned how, face it warfare is something most of us never want to deal with, so I guess in lieu of waterboarding we can just kill them....That would solve a lot of problems too.

If you release them back to the wild, they'll just wind up getting shelled by a helicopter, or gunned down by one of our snipers.

You know, death the "humane" way

Even in Vietnam it was against the law to throw people from the helicopters... It was wrong then and it's wrong now. And we are NOT enjoying anymore freedoms today because Vietcon were tossed from helicopters.

There are MANY other options besides death or torture... Come on Evan, you are better than that argument...

This isn't a free for all just because it's on a battle field. If it was, then why even bother taking prisoners? Why not gun them down where they stand?
There are damn good reasons we follow rules of engagement and adhere to the Geneva convention.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Yes I read the memos, yes I still believe that water boarding is torture



Even in Vietnam it was against the law to throw people from the helicopters... It was wrong then and it's wrong now. And we are NOT enjoying anymore freedoms today because Vietcon were tossed from helicopters.

There are MANY other options besides death or torture... Come on Evan, you are better than that argument...

This isn't a free for all just because it's on a battle field. If it was, then why even bother taking prisoners? Why not gun them down where they stand?
There are damn good reasons we follow rules of engagement and adhere to the Geneva convention.

I didn't say we were free because of it, but a lot of soldiers came home. It's a fair trade-off to me

 

[Tim]

I didn't say we were free because of it, but a lot of soldiers came home. It's a fair trade-off to me

It's not a fair trade off, not even close...

If you are fighting from the moral high ground, you do not win by breaking the laws you are bound by.


It's like saying that it's ok to sell cocaine to fund the war against drugs.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

It's not a fair trade off, not even close...

If you are fighting from the moral high ground, you do not win by breaking the laws you are bound by.


It's like saying that it's ok to sell cocaine to fund the war against drugs.

The object is to reduce American casualties, there's no moral high ground once you've resorted to shooting each other.

The Geneva Convention to me is harped on by those who have either A. never been in warfare conditions B. Can't stomach the thought of mass casualty due to warfare or C. Both

I stand by the notion that although warfare is a horrible thing, when you start determining how dead is dead, you're splitting hairs.

I didn't say I liked it, or agreed with it, I said I know that it exists and although horrible, I don't think civilians are best apt to determine military tactics.

 

[Tim]

The object is to reduce American casualties, there's no moral high ground once you've resorted to shooting each other.

The Geneva Convention to me is harped on by those who have either A. never been in warfare conditions B. Can't stomach the thought of mass casualty due to warfare or C. Both

I stand by the notion that although warfare is a horrible thing, when you start determining how dead is dead, you're splitting hairs.

I didn't say I liked it, or agreed with it, I said I know that it exists and although horrible, I don't think civilians are best apt to determine military tactics.

Absolutely there is a moral high ground. War is NOT a win at all cost undertaking. If it were, we could use chemical weapons, biological weapons, white phosphorous bombs, fragmenting bullets, flame throwers, land mines, or any of the other hundreds of proven techniques that would greatly shorten any conflict. As ugly as war is, we are not a barbaric society. We DO live under the rule of law and those laws apply in peacetime and wartime. As a matter of fact, we have specific laws governing us during war.........

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Absolutely there is a moral high ground. War is NOT a win at all cost undertaking. If it were, we could use chemical weapons, biological weapons, white phosphorous bombs, fragmenting bullets, flame throwers, land mines, or any of the other hundreds of proven techniques that would greatly shorten any conflict. As ugly as war is, we are not a barbaric society. We DO live under the rule of law and those laws apply in peacetime and wartime. As a matter of fact, we have specific laws governing us during war.........

I understand, you have to draw a line somewhere, now the problem is everyone wanting to move it around.

To me, I say sorry whomever you are, but someone has decided that we need to kick your ass....So we'll make this quick and as painless as possible.

But we're not going to lie, it will hurt like a motherfucker at first.

Signed,
The US

 

[dasb00T]

RecklessTim nailed it.

If you want to torture, or think that the U.S. government should be allowed to, then either you can advocate for a change in law, or for the government to break the law. If it's the latter, then we do not have the rule of law in the United States.

Our nation has laws in place against torture. If the administration conformed to what some of you are advocating then we would be governed by dictators and fascists...which goes fundamentally against our core values as a nation. Once we have abandoned the principle of the rule of law, what kind of nation do we have?

 

[dasb00T]

I understand, you have to draw a line somewhere, now the problem is everyone wanting to move it around.

To me, I say sorry whomever you are, but someone has decided that we need to kick your ass....So we'll make this quick and as painless as possible.

But we're not going to lie, it will hurt like a motherfucker at first.

Signed,
The US

It's this kind of reckless arrogance that has led us to ignoring all of the signs leading up to 9/11, plus the aftermath that was birthed from the attack.

 

[Alien Allen]

Absolutely there is a moral high ground. War is NOT a win at all cost undertaking. If it were, we could use chemical weapons, biological weapons, white phosphorous bombs, fragmenting bullets, flame throwers, land mines, or any of the other hundreds of proven techniques that would greatly shorten any conflict. As ugly as war is, we are not a barbaric society. We DO live under the rule of law and those laws apply in peacetime and wartime. As a matter of fact, we have specific laws governing us during war.........

But, but, but,

Define at all cost. What is the difference if we went into a battle with 10 to 1 ratio of soldiers. It is a massacre. Is that not winning at all cost??

 

[dasb00T]

But, but, but,

Define at all cost. What is the difference if we went into a battle with 10 to 1 ratio of soldiers. It is a massacre. Is that not winning at all cost??

You cannot equate a battlefield scenario to that of a torture chamber. It's failed logic.

The pursuit of information is not win at all costs, regardless of whether they are high level or low level detainees. As I mentioned before, if we abandon our principles then what separates us from the countries of the men that we torture?

 

[Alien Allen]

You cannot equate a battlefield scenario to that of a torture chamber. It's failed logic.

The pursuit of information is not win at all costs, regardless of whether they are high level or low level detainees. As I mentioned before, if we abandon our principles then what separates us from the countries of the men that we torture?

I did not make that comparison.

Go back and read what I bolded. It was referring to winning war at all costs.

 

[Strauss]

That would be correct. If waterboarding is done as outlined in those memos.

You did not say if you ever read them. It is pretty tedious long read but is well thought out.

Gee.....where did you hear that argument? And who told you to read the ACTUAL Memos? :cool

That's the interesting part, 99.9% of the people offering up opinions don't know the type of waterboarding that was advocated as legal and haven't read the Memos. What they have done is read the yellow newspaper reports that laughingly pass as journalism and THINK they know what they are talking about.

I will ask this group of learned scholars....can anyone show me a quote from Obama in which he declares waterboarding as outlined in the CIA Memos as illegal.