Legality of torture

[TBoone]

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

Originally Posted by TBoone

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

Be very careful here because, if someone in your government decides that you MAY have ties to terrorists, you qualify for torture, under your own rules. And so does every one of your fellow countrymen.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by TBoone

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

There was a time not so long ago when in this country men without uniforms when around killing both uniformed military troops and civilians. They violated the rules of war and were in fact committing treason against their country.

These "Terrorists" were lead by men with the names of Washington, Gates and Jones.

I'm very careful about who I paint with the wide brush of "Terrorist". The people we torture today maybe become the heroes of a future nation, and how will that nation look at us?

[August]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

There was a time not so long ago when in this country men without uniforms when around killing both uniformed military troops and civilians. They violated the rules of war and were in fact committing treason against their country.

That isn't really true. Colonial militia made a point of wearing some identifying mark on the battlefield to distinguish themselves from civilians.

Can you also list which civilians they were killing? I suppose you can find isolated incidents for anything but afaik there was no officially ordered massacre of civilians by the Continental army.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by August

That isn't really true. Colonial militia made a point of wearing some identifying mark on the battlefield to distinguish themselves from civilians.

Can you also list which civilians they were killing? I suppose you can find isolated incidents for anything but afaik there was no officially ordered massacre of civilians by the Continental army.

If you look in to the southern campaign you'll see that there were small groups of militia on both sides (Rebels and Loyalists) went around settling old scores.

The executions after The Battle of Kings Mountain are one example. it could be said those men were killed for an act of treason which was that they were not committing treason.

[August]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

If you look in to the southern campaign you'll see that there were small groups of militia on both sides (Rebels and Loyalists) went around settling old scores.

The executions after The Battle of Kings Mountain are one example. it could be said those men were killed for an act of treason which was that they were not committing treason.

Ok so it was like I said then, nothing organized or approved by Washington or the Continental Congress.

[Dowly]

I wished I'd see a video of US soldier being waterboarded or beaten. I'd quess that'd change the replies in this thread.

IMHO, westernt world has gone to far to call themselves the good guys anymore. We have sunk to their level. Not good.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I wished I'd see a video of US soldier being waterboarded or beaten. I'd quess that'd change the replies in this thread.

IMHO, westernt world has gone to far to call themselves the good guys anymore. We have sunk to their level. Not good.

Saw everything i needed to see when they were cutting the heads off of innocent civilians.

No... we havent sunk to their level... not until we start capturing random citizens and start beheading them for shock value.

I have nothing good to say about any of these _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [I value my membership too much to type it so use your imagination]

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by TBoone

I think that the Geneva convention should not aply to terorists simply because TERORISTS ARE NOT SOLDIERS THEY ARE BISICALY JUST LOWDOWN F*CKS THAT WOULD DIE TRYING TO KILL INOSENT PEOPLE!!!
SOLDIERS ON THE OTHER HAND ARE HEROES THAT PROTECT PEOPLES RIGHTS AND WOULD DIE TRYING TO SAVE OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!!! That ANY Torture should be used to get terorists to disclose any information they may have in there TINY SEMI-FUNCTIONING MINDS!!!

It must be nice to live in a black and white world.
Life just is not that simple, by my experiences.

[TBoone]

Look my Grandfather Fought in Vietnam and he made Sergeant E6 in 2 years and is a good friend and mentore of mine He Believes the same as I do because I learned that from him. Oh and by the way if you think he was just one of those drugies who sat behind the lines. He was in the 101st Airborne Division 506th Paratroop Ifantry Regiment He was a Hero him and his men were the front line from Cambodia to the DMZ. And My Greatgrandfather drove General Patton around for 3 months in WW2 Normandy. I also happen to study history do you???

[Happy Times]

One of the things we train a lot in the army recon is taking prisoners when ordered to.

When the capture goes right the ones that we leave alive get a sack in their head and roughed up, we are the bad guys and they should feel scared.

Usually they get moved to the analysts/ interrogators that we have in the command platoon. They will first speak to them in their native language and they are the good guys.

Im not sure how far they will go but we are shown the basics of stress positions, sleep deprivation and ways of inflicting pain if we need to interrogate the prisoner ourselfs.

None of this is something the defence forces would confirm officially so you will have to take my word for it.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by TBoone

Look my Grandfather Fought in Vietnam and he made Sergeant E6 in 2 years and is a good friend and mentore of mine He Believes the same as I do because I learned that from him. Oh and by the way if you think he was just one of those drugies who sat behind the lines. He was in the 101st Airborne Division 506th Paratroop Ifantry Regiment He was a Hero him and his men were the front line from Cambodia to the DMZ. And My Greatgrandfather drove General Patton around for 3 months in WW2 Normandy. I also happen to study history do you???

That still doesn't make the world black and white. Actually that explains nothing. Soldiers have all my genuine respect for seeing the hell that is war and for being put into positions noone would normally want to be in. But that doesn't make the world black and white. Soldiers are in fact "colourblind" on the job by training, because they have to be - this doesn't make them right, even if it makes their sacrifices something to be honourably respected.
But they are not someone to learn ethics from. They're not the ones who make decisions. In a democracy, it's civil people that have to make them, and civil people need to abide by civil norms of life and ideally make decisions in light of its complexity and ambiguity, and that's the way it must be - if normal, civil people in daily walks of life see the world in the same black and white that soldiers have to, then I fear this world will never see real freedom and democracy. Instead it will always choose to side with dictatorship, which is the army's natural way of working.

How do you "diagnose" a terrorist? Most of them don't walk around with "shoot me I'm a terrorist" sign on them. They don't wear their hatreds on their sleeve. And they mostly belong to "groups" that could hardly be called organized or ideologically unified, or with obvious signs of membership. So how do you know? What use is what you learned from history or your grandfather? Did your grandfather happen to have psychic powers that he taught you? Did Patton? I don't think so. It's possible to make informed, hard, necessary decisions about these things, but only by being critical and accepting the complexity and non-black-and-whiteness of the matter. Along with responsibility for grave mistakes, some of which are necessary.

Things are complicated. Soldiers have to have jobs done. YOUR job in civil life is not to blindly adapt their voluntary state of moral stupidity (i.e. unquestioning following of orders without a military would never, ever work), but to be a critical, thinking, deliberating person who sees things clearly and guide your government to make the right decisions for your troops, to not waste their lives, to make sure they don't needlessly waste lives of other people, and respect what they do and not use them for causes that are vain. To deliberate and act like a civilian when fighting a war is criminal, and to obey and follow like a soldier in civilian life is just as criminal for someone in a democratic state. So in that sense, your "qualifications" are moot - yes, soldiers have plenty to teach us about personal qualities and morals, but only if we are able to take their experience critically, not stupidly worshipping them. Soldiers obey and kill, period. Is that what you want to do all day?

And like others have said, it's always tricky. Personally, I don't believe torture or even some of these "high pressure" methods are justified or necessary. I think most people don't realize how easy it is to break an average person with something like torture - but the problem is that once you do break them, what are you really getting? Real information or confessions of a sniveling wreck who wants the pain to stop? The truth is that it's both. And making executive decisions without knowing which is which is almost as bad as making them based on no information at all. Being a prisoner under interrogation should never be a pleasant experience, but the cruelty beyond a certain point is senseless and goes against the values on which this democracy you fight for is built on.

As for US and "enemy combatants", I think it just needs to cut the charade and treat them like POWs. They're people too, and they're not any more dangerous than the average indoctrinated enemy soldier. This whole thing is not doing anyone any good, and makes everyone look bad - so cut the crap and give them due process. Show them what actual democracy and freedom is made of - if you believe in them, of course. Reading posts like this makes me wonder about it sometimes...

"Us vs. them" thinking is not freedom vs. evil. It IS the ultimate evil. It is a necessary evil in a firefight, or any situation of urgent danger. It's a blind, stupid, senseless evil pretty well everywhere else. Learn the difference. Think critically. Stop living in siege mentality while you have a choice. And boy there are plenty of humane, rational, non-violent choices to be made here before everything goes to hell. I respect your relatives - but you are not your relatives. You're not in Cambodia and you're not fighting with Patton in Normandy. Stop trying to pretend you are, before we all live in Cambodia with Patton every minute of our daily lives.

[TBoone]

Those were some pretty words that were actauly just some democratic propaganda but realy the U.S. was formed as a republic somthing good were people had rights and now its called a democracy but if you look at the history of democratic governments allot of them have turned into that thing you hate so much a dictatorship. Did you know that Nazi Germany was a democracy at one point in time before Hitler came in and had people replaced in politics that thought the same way as he did and that he was able to get the constitution of his country voted out and then it became a dictatorship. A Republic is a government were everybody gets a say in things a democracy is a government were only politicians get a say in things. And through democracy The Great Republic of The Uninted States is becoming a country were it has to compare itself to weaker world players like Canada to win. But thank God that this democratic government in the U.S. is becomeing weak because the people are fighting it. Maybe I was a little harsh on the terorists in my first post but the thing I was not harsh on was democracy and if the U.S. democrats keep it up this country will be a 3rd world bankrupt dictatorship were nobody has rights in oh I'd say 10 to 30 years!!!

Thanks Platapus for that point by point - examination of the laws. And yes I suppose there are ways for countries to claim they have a right to use torture in a war or some other similar conflict.

Maybe we're in the situation we were before WW 2 when the League of nations was too weak to stop the big war. Maybe the UN and it's conventions has just become too weak to actually matter globally.

[tater]

Another great analysis by Andy McCarthy (prosecutor of the 1993 Trade Center bombers):

http://article.nationalreview.com/33...rew-c-mccarthy

Salient points are that the US Constitutional challenges to torture with which everyone (in the US) agrees are to the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments. They apply only to people within the US judicial system, basically. Cruel and unusual punishment applies to what is meted out after a trial.

TORTURE AND “CID” UNDER OTHER AMERICAN AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Still, torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are prohibited under international law — in particular, under several human-rights treaties ratified by the United States. Under the supremacy clause, treaties are “the supreme Law of the Land.” With that understanding, it might be said that the Constitution speaks to torture. Nevertheless, had the unadorned Constitution prohibited torture, these treaties, as well as various anti-torture statutes enacted since 1994, would have been superfluous.

The Geneva Conventions prohibit torture but not in all circumstances. Recognizing that, human-rights activists pushed for the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatments (UNCAT), which were ratified by the U.S. in 1992 and 1994, respectively. Both forbid torture, and the UNCAT called for the passage of anti-torture legislation, which Congress promptly enacted.

Further, both the ICCPR and the UNCAT prohibit cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CID). Here, however, there is an important qualification. In consenting to both treaties, the Senate added a caveat: CID was to be understood in the U.S. as the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prohibited under the aforementioned Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. That is, CID would be controlled by governing American constitutional law — not what activist NGOs, international law professors, and foreign regimes decided terms like “degrading treatment” might mean.

Since waterboarding (what we are really discussing here, nothing else the US has done is even close to torture) does no real physical harm, we are limited to mental pain and suffering.

As McCarthy says:

With respect to mental pain or suffering, Section 2340 does tell us that severe “means prolonged mental harm” (emphasis added). It also provides examples of the type of prolonged behavior that is prohibited: inflicting or threatening to inflict severe pain or suffering; using or threatening to use mind-altering drugs; threatening imminent death; or threatening that a third person (say, a family member) of the victim will be subjected to equivalent cruelties.

Still unclear.

He goes on to point out that while WE, the public at large do not know the actual details of the exact techniques used (there are many slight variations of the technique), members of the US Congress do know, and while they've passed laws regarding treatment of detainees, they could have—and did not—mention this particular technique specifically. Knowing this was the worst we've done, had Congress meant to, they could easily have done so. Note that this are Democrat controlled Congresses, or Rep controlled, but Dems have filibuster, and therefore any bill must be acceptable to them (Bush didn't have a supermajority like the dems had until a couple months ago).

It's a complex issue.

Personally, I'd reserve the harshest techniques (with the caveat that they are demonstrably effective, and not merely punitive) for critical cases where it might reasonably result in actionable intelligence that could prevent a major attack—this is not to be taken lightly. Note that all the while, the technique in and of itself should still be legal according the vague laws already in place. If two reasonable people can disagree about where the line is, then it's still OK, in other words.