Printable View
Thats not the excuse thats just a fact. And again what constitutes torture? Incarceration itself can be seen as torture.Quote:
"But someone else does it too" and "but this isn't real torture" don't exactly cut it you know. Those are called "lame excuses" around here.
You use it as an excuse though.
As for the rest, :dizzy2: . Stuff it Clinton. Semantics don't work here. Are you incidentally aware as of why incerceration came to replace legally applied violence as the standard form of punishement in "Western" legal system a few centuries back...?
I never use it as an excuse . Because it isnt one. I just state facts.Quote:
You use it as an excuse though.
And you are aware of what a total failure it has been. Ive been to jail and Ill take waterboarding for a few hours over a year or two in jail anyday.Quote:
Semantics don't work here. Are you incidentally aware as of why incerceration came to replace legally applied violence as the standard form of punishement in "Western" legal system a few centuries back...?
Presumably though your incarceration was after due legal process? In which case it is slightly different from the individuals who are currently vulnerable to torture while imprisoned by, or on behalf of, the US. I suspect also that your incarceration was not utilised as a means of extracting either a confession or information and that if either of those were sought by the authorities then you had access to a lawyer. If you went to gaol then it was as a punishment as required by law.
I should probably note that I don't usually pay much attention to smilies, preferring to read the text instead.
Well I went to court after spending 2 months in jail and then it was a railroad job because I had to take legal aid. First time I was ever arrested. My brother did something far worse and got off with probation because he could afford a lawyer. Torture goes on in every precinct I know of.Quote:
Presumably though your incarceration was after due legal process?
By favor of those who wish to throw around the word torture liberally and have it defined as some do literally and all encompassing, then I could also claim that my basic human dignity and civil rights as violated should Mrs Clinton become Mrs President. Maybe we can make it a class action, I'm sure the U.N. would care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
How about putting a phone book on your head and bashing you with a night stick is that torture? How about just smacking you around? If you get arrested even if your innocent they take you to the precinct strip search you and then put you in a cell where you cant even see anyone else. All you have is a board to sleep on with no pillow or anything to cover yourself with. If your lucky you will get an egg sandwich for breakfast and a baloney one for lunch.
Oh sure, this all falls under the broad interpretation. Hell an egg sandwich is torture for me. Being in handcuffs can be considered torture for many people and by the broad interpretation. Not to lesson your ordeal at all, but rather stating with you that the word "torture" is sought to cover a lot of ground these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Thats all I wanted to illustrate . We accept a certain amount of torture in our culture, all cultures do(this is not an excuse) the thing is where do you draw the line? Thats how Bush can claim we dont torture people. Its all subjective.Quote:
Oh sure, this all falls under the broad interpretation. Hell an egg sandwich is torture for me. Being in handcuffs can be considered torture for many people and by the broad interpretation. Not lesson your ordeal at all, but rather stating with you that the word "torture" is sought to cover a lot of ground these days.
Well legally he can claim it as there aren't any legal bounds for how and where it is being carried out as has been the case for 60 + years. There isn't anything new about it either other than the press coverage and partisan politics. He can deny it also as he has no legal obligations under information privilege. We can do anything we really wanted to in the scope where these techniques are being used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
What's funny is that our restraint isn't being viewed and reported as a marked trait, but rather that these techniques are a wholesale equivalent to everything under the torture umbrella and we are barbarians making our enemies look like angels. If that isn't slant...I've got some lovely mountainside property that would make a perfect golf course...
Well then you and I are trying to make the same point .Quote:
What's funny is that our restraint isn't being viewed and reported as a marked trait, but rather that these techniques are a wholesale equivalent to everything under the torture umbrella and we are barbarians making our enemies look like angels. If that isn't slant...I've got some lovely mountainside property that would make a perfect golf course...
The problem with torture is once we start doing it, it leaves any of our captured soliders open to it on the grounds of they did it to us first. We should remember the golden rule more offten.
One aspect of torture I think we can be objective about: if you treat someone in a way that is designed to cause distress or discomfort in order to get them to confess or give you information then that is torture. The treatment could be physical abuse, mental torment or the threat of either to themselves or others. In such cases not only is the torturer acting imorally, the information so gleaned will not be reliable. Under this test, locking someone in an uncomfortable police cell to get them to confess to a crime is torture, but locking them up to keep them from absconding before you can get them before a judge is not.
Torture as a punishment, rather than to extract information is more subjective because it depends upon what people view as cruel. Perhaps a "humane" treatment test works here. You can incacerate people as a punishment and treat them humanely. You can't humanely waterboard someone.
Sums it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Another Lemur home run. :bow:
As I said, due process. Not necessarily fair or even, but what was required by law. Mistreatment by the police is another matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
When was this by the way? Two years ago? Forty?
I forget which candidate said it in the republican debate but when asked about torture said I would tell me head of security to get me the information. Brilliant answer. The higher ups dont want to know. Its built into the system.Quote:
As I said, due process. Not necessarily fair or even, but what was required by law. Mistreatment by the police is another matter.
30 years agoQuote:
When was this by the way? Two years ago? Forty?
Their cutting our soldiers heads off lol. They have no such quams about torture, If you play a game by the rules and your enemy doesnt who do you think has a better chance of winning. When will you learn war is not a game. At leastin the real world. We sign things like Geneva for such reasons. These guys are not signatories of any treaty. I say fight fire with fire. Its a two way street. Hell Id have everyone over there greasing their guns with pig fat.See how happy they are to die then.:laugh4:Quote:
The problem with torture is once we start doing it, it leaves any of our captured soliders open to it on the grounds of they did it to us first. We should remember the golden rule more offten.
U.S. Soldiers were treated to "harsh methods" and/or outright torture in virtually every conflict in which they have been involved since 1950. Prior to the WoT, you would be hard-pressed to assert that this was because of previous use of torture/harsh interrogation by the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope
What goes down for torture I wouldn't call torture, moderate pressure at most. You have your weapons, they have theirs. Yours is raw power theirs is fear. Torture doesn't get them anywhere, and it benefits you guys not that much. Best to just don't do it imvho, although I can think of a few cases where fishing hooks could come in handy, not against it per se, but there is no necesity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Respectfully disagree, if the purpose of torture was torture than there would be no rhyme to the reason and anyone who examines the issue can see there is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
So you think all who use torture are rational and reasonable? Maybe you've not heard of witch processes? People who use torture are often people with grave mental disorders who try to vent their aggressions and sexual-sadistic ideas on someone, and they try hard to convince authorities and officials that what they do isn't just for their own fulfillment but that it is good for "the state", or similar. Witch doctors, human sacrifice priests, etc, are a nuisance that appear every now and then in history and manage to fool some persons because they play on things such as what these people already hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeHonestus
So you think their different from everyone else? Are all of any group ALL rational and reasonable? To say the only purpose of torture is torture is silly statement on the face of it. Can it be used just for that? Why of course. So is that what your accusing the US of ? Is this government policy?Quote:
So you think all who use torture are rational and reasonable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Both these statements are nothing more than an exercise in passive aggressive rhetoric. They say nothing specific about the topic at hand, but rather hope to lump everything in one sum and cast venom upon any who advocate anything under that umbrella definition. Both statements are dishonest at their very best.
...and you actually had the nerve to claim you weren't using "but they do it too" as an excuse ? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Side note: although I'll have to agree Legio doesn't quite seem to have a clue about what he's talking of with his historical references (which are by and large patently wrong).
Only in war. Only if you want to win. We performed many atrocities in WW2 also but since we won you dont hear much about it. In war everyone does it. When its you or the other guy the hell with the damn rules. You sort those out later and leave it to the politicians.Quote:
and you actually had the nerve to claim you weren't using "but they do it too" as an excuse ?
So... where does that actually leave you any different from the other side then ? And since when was the US situation so desperate as to require such measures anyway ? Heck, many of the participants of the damn World Wars were able to maintain the integrity of their relevant moral principles in genuinely desperate circumstances - so where do you guys get off with it and why, pray tell ?
:no:
So now you're adding "dire necessity of circumstance" and, implicitly, "just causes" to the list of hollow excuses then ?
Yes even the Nazis. Theres good and bad in every group. How is that rellevant. Im saying when the rules of war say you cant use a 50 cal mg on soft targets IE humans and your being over run you shoot the damn bastards. You worry if its against the rules later.Quote:
Heck, many of the participants of the damn World Wars were able to maintain the integrity of their relevant moral principles in genuinely desperate circumstances -
Be very careful with absolute statements such as this. The Fire Bombing of a certain German town belies such a stance. There are other exambles but for the absolute statement lets just start with that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
And the Soviet Union had several instances where morality on the battlefield completely broke down.
Sometimes I wonder just how many conditionals would be required for some people to not read things in an excessively absolute fashion...
When you stop making statements like thisQuote:
Sometimes I wonder just how many conditionals would be required for some people to not read things in an excessively absolute fashion...
Quote:
Heck, many of the participants of the damn World Wars were able to maintain the integrity of their relevant moral principles in genuinely desperate circumstances
The point is many if not all of them did not. Every country was guilty if you look hard enough.
:dizzy2:
We're talking torture of enemy combatants here, not carpet bombing or mustard gas. Even the damn Nazis were all civilized about Western Allied POWs as the standard policy AFAIK, you know.
Sheesh. Keep on topic people.