PDA

View Full Version : illegal torture


Flightfreak
18-05-2005, 06:57 AM
delete

deviljet88
18-05-2005, 07:56 AM
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=4151

Coincidentally, this news article was on the front page of the newspaper in Melbourne yesterday. I think its wrong but as this Deakin Uni prof said, if you can save thousands of lives if you managed to extract some information... This prof however, goes to the extreme of saying, if death is achieved through torture, it is still right depending on the reasoning for torturing =\

Liam
18-05-2005, 09:58 AM
It strikes me as odd that the goal of the war on terror is to eliminate the very tactics they are using. Then again, its normal for powerful nations to do a Jekyll and Hyde - putting on a face of abhorring injustice, torture and persecution; only to employ those very things as a means of achieving their goals. As long as news of it doesn't leak into the electorate, everything is OK.

What you have to remember though - its not just the Americans. The British did it. The Russians did it. The Japanese did it. And you can bet its going on behind closed doors in any number of nations around the world. For every case we hear about, there are many that we don't. And its been happening for thousands upon thousands of years. Is it likely to stop any time soon? No.

Is this behaviour justified? No. Is terrorism justified? No. Its an odd balance. Nobody has the right to play God and say 'a few lives reduced to insignificance here is worth saving the lives of thousands' - but at the same time, it makes sense. If someone has information that could prevent many innocent lives being lost - the fact that they are not *directly* involved in setting up an attack doesn't wash their hands of responsibility. If torture is the only way to get the information out of someone, then so be it.

Torture is a facet of war. The current conflict is a war, albeit not a conventional one. Torture is inevitable.

hasselbrad
18-05-2005, 12:27 PM
In 2002 the US government declared that its Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners were not prisoners of war but ‘unlawful combatants’, depriving them of the protection of the Geneva Conventions. The effect is to allow the US to detain its prisoners indefinitely, and to remove the obligation to treat them ‘humanely’. However, the phrase ‘unlawful combatant’ does not appear in the Geneva Conventions; many international lawyers argue that the Conventions do in fact cover the Guantanamo detainees.

...and, in a related note, American lawyers argue that a woman who trips over her own unruly child is somehow due reparations from the business establishment she was in at the time.
Torture is an ugly reality of warfare, and if you don't have the stomach for it, I suggest you stock up on Pepto Bismol. The Geneva Convention is pretty cut and dry as to who it protects. Carbombing civilian targets, dressed in civilian clothing and using mosques as cover aren't covered. Nor is dressing like civilians and flying civilian aircraft into civilian targets. They started the game, and they chose the rules, so now I guess they are forced to play the hand dealt them. And, if hooking some scumbag's nutsack to a car battery is the only way to get information that might save thousands of lives, I have only one thing to say...red is positive, black is negative and be sure to shave 'em raw for good contact.

Meteora
18-05-2005, 10:06 PM
Today, class, we learn that the United States, as well as its government, exhibits the same tendencies that every government that has ever existed exhibits.

But, of course, most other governments in our modern world, especially those in the West, are not in the position in which those tendencies become apparent; therefore, the rest of the world is able to portray the US has evil or immoral while pretending they are holier.

Alas, the nations of the world look out for themselves, no matter which side of the Sea they reside.


Torturing, however, shall never be justifiable.

Foeni
19-05-2005, 10:28 AM
That same program was showed on Danish television as well FF.
Yes, it is tough to be in Guantanamo, no doubt about that. But you got to remember that those who are there are mostly people who have fought against the coalition. They fought for Taliban, who supported Bin Laden. I'm not saying it's perfectly right what's going on, but we also have to be aware that a lot of them probably have some kind of information.

There was an example some years ago. I'm not sure what organisation it was, maybe CIA, but they got their hands on a known terrorist. They used all legal means to make this man talk, and they got nothing. The interigators (I think that's the term) then decided that they had to get the information from the terrorist, and told him they'd hold his head in the water until he talked. They did, and he ended up giving enough info to capture another terrorist, whom they also got to talk through torture (mild). His info led them to a third terrorist who was making a smaller nuclear bomb meant to explode in USA. All this was very well documented. Now was it worth torturing the two terrorist for their knowledge? YES! Torturing those two terrorists saved a lot of innocent lifes.
I don't mean to justifie torture, of course not, but sometimes it's needed to be hard on terrorists in order to save a lot of lives.

Back to Guantanamo. There also is no doubt that a lot of 'innocents' are being held back there, and that's a fair, neither smart move of the US government not to investigate faster and better.

Dionysus
19-05-2005, 02:31 PM
Yes, it is tough to be in Guantanamo, no doubt about that. But you got to remember that those who are there are mostly people who have fought against the coalition. They fought for Taliban, who supported Bin Laden. I'm not saying it's perfectly right what's going on, but we also have to be aware that a lot of them probably have some kind of information.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

you can't just say that because their "terrorists" that whatever means to an end in getting information is fine in dealing with them as long as they talk, that is what the "terrorists" are doing, and the coalition in iraq are supposed to be stopping that, not just putting a diffrent uniformed soldier behind the torture table

they are human beings too, and they MUST be treated humanely
if it is certain they know something and won't tell, keep interegating, but torture is not ok. almost all "terrorist" groups that are around today are angry with the US (mostly) because of actions the US have done in the past, it is the US' s own ignorance that has put them in the situation they are in, they LITERALLY put the guns in the hands of most of the people who are against them now, and it wasnt the "terrorists" that turned on the US, the US turned their backs on them

by treating another human being, inhumanely, they fail to be human themselves

Leonie
19-05-2005, 02:46 PM
Che Guevara... some consider him to be a terrorist, yet nowadays, he's honoured as some kind of just hero.

The word terrorist means nothing, it's just an indication of whose side you're on.

Just my two cents.

Titooy
19-05-2005, 03:10 PM
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

My grandfather was to be executed as a "terrorist" in 1944 by the Nazis because he was part of what we name "resistance". Fortunately the war ended and he is still there... Anyway don't tell me more about "terrorists"...

By the way, the worst argument I've ever read or heard is "They did it first". The fact that someone is a bastard doesn't allow you to be one.

hasselbrad
19-05-2005, 04:26 PM
you know what a funny thing is, well actually it isn’t funny, but anyway
The only growing part in the economy of Iraq is the crime and terrorism business.
Maybe the good old cowboy method the USA likes to use isn’t the best one.
I am wondering what do the media tell the people in the USA? About the Iraq business?

You know what's really funny? It's how you make these assertions and yet never seem to post a credible link.

Tell me, whose freedom are these "freedom fighters" fighting for? It's not like these folks are Iraqi patriots fighting to liberate their country. Virtually all of these terrorists are being shipped in from surrounding countries. You can read more about it, here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051401270.html)
For the "insurgents", this is not a fight for freedom, but rather oppression. Look around the region. Most of the countries there make the former Soviet Union look like the Netherlands. This is not some holy crusade against Islam as a religion, but rather against radical, fundamentalist ideals that have been twisted into a culture of death. And now, not only is Al-Zarqawi calling for the death of all infidels (that's code for anyone who doesn't pray toward Mecca), but even for Muslims that happen to get in the way. In other words, he is providing justification for the killing of innocent Iraqis, which is convenient, since the killing of Iraqis who voted in the January elections was at the top of his to do list. They (Al Qaeda) don't want to see freedom of any kind of a foothold in the Middle East. Why? Because that makes it harder to whip up anti-American fervor and get young men to martyr themselves.
Freedom is something that everyone holds dear...even young Iranians (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/world/main673876.shtml) who were said to have been secretly flashing victory signs to one another when news of Bush's victory came in November.
And, a rather unlikely vote of confidence for the changes in Iraq was voiced by, none other than, Bill Clinton. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/18/132122.shtml)
Oh, and Flightfreak, don't worry about what the media over here is saying. It's pretty much all right up your alley...**cough**Newsweek***cough**
;)

Leonie
19-05-2005, 06:07 PM
Didn’t you just prove that the only growing business in Iraq terrorism and crime is?

No. I think you'll find that what he just proved is that the terrorism and crime business you are referring to is mainly a foreign business abusing the current Iraq situation.

Leonie
19-05-2005, 06:43 PM
could be, but that doesnt change the fact that it is the only groing busines in iraq.

Situation: Street gangs, *local* gangs - take hostages and try to sell them to organisations like al Qaeda, or threaten to kill them themselves if their demands aren't met. Where do I get this information? The BBC made a documentary about the economy in Iraq and came to the conclusion that the only growing business there are the hostile and crime businesses.

And that is better than having the exact same situation in Iraq lead by the head of state himself how? It's not like it was Disneyland before.

I'm not sure invading Iraq was a wise thing to do. In fact, I think it was rather foolish. However, you can hardly blame the US for actions committed by terrorist/bad guys/them (as opposed to 'us') who think this is an excellent opportunity to sow the seeds of hatred against the west, the US in particular.

hasselbrad
19-05-2005, 07:31 PM
could be, but that doesnt change the fact that it is the only groing busines in iraq.

Situation: Street gangs, *local* gangs - take hostages and try to sell them to organisations like al Qaeda, or threaten to kill them themselves if their demands aren't met. Where do I get this information? The BBC made a documentary about the economy in Iraq and came to the conclusion that the only growing business there are the hostile and crime businesses.

And people didn't think democracy could take hold...they've apparently already embraced capitalism. ;) Seriously, do you think there would be a market for hostages if Al-Qaeda wasn't openly trying to sow the seeds of civil unrest?

hasselbrad
19-05-2005, 08:31 PM
so? could be, but that doesnt change the fact that it is the only groing busines in iraq.

@leonie
No you cant blame the US for it, but they dident make the world a safer place by playing world cop on their own. terorism is a threat for the whole world.
work to gether on the same level, to fight against terorims. but now the usa just do what they want when they want. and we have to help clean up the mess after it.

It's also a booming business in Mexico. And, your point doesn't change the fact that once we eradicate these vermin, that this situation will correct itself.
Trust me. These scumbags are getting desperate. For all of the horror stories that our media is trying to cram down our throats, the situation isn't that bad. Many parts of the country are actually running better than they were under Saddam.
And, as to the world being a safer place, has Al-Qaeda managed to launch any catastrophic attacks around the globe lately?

Leonie
19-05-2005, 09:28 PM
And, as to the world being a safer place, has Al-Qaeda managed to launch any catastrophic attacks around the globe lately?

*touches wood*

Whether or not the USA should or shouldn't have invaded Iraq is a totally different debate. I'm simply saying they cannot be held responsable for the random attacks and murders. It's a rather drastic comparison, but do you blame the Belgian government for what Dutroux did? Do you blame the government for people who die at the hand of murderers? Sure, it is true that it is their job to secure the safety of a country's citizens, but there is nothing legal forces can do against unlawful crazed individuals, simply because they have to operate within the restrictions of human(e) laws.

Locking alleged criminals up before they commit a crime would be a little inhumane. Government and police forces in any country generally can't react until there's a criminal offence to react on. Why? Because if they had the power needed to stop these well thought out attacks in advance, people would start whining about privacy. You can't expect police forces to be able to stop everything, if you want to keep a little bit of privacy.

Now, to drag this back on topic, there is a lawful and an unlawful way in which one can endeavour to stop these acts of terror. (Yes, that would be me trying to use the word in it's original, last century meaning, 'terror' being 'fear-inducing'. Note the English word 'terrified' meaning 'scared', rather than 'victim of a man with a turban' :icon_razz) Torture isn't it. In a way, you are doing the same thing you are condemning and invading other nations for, which seems a little hypocrite to me.

hasselbrad
19-05-2005, 09:57 PM
Torture isn't it. In a way, you are doing the same thing you are condemning and invading other nations for, which seems a little hypocrite to me.

There is a difference in aggressive interrogation tactics and torture for the sake of inflicting pain. I had a fraternity brother who was an interrogator in the U.S. Army. When he'd get a little drunk, he'd let us in on a little of what he did. It was a lot more manipulation and intimidation than physical torture. That, was a last resort.
As to what I have seen regarding what has happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay pales in comparison to the physical hazing that has traditionally gone on at fraternity houses at universities across America. I don't agree with it, but reality is reality.
And, what went on isn't even on the same planet as sawing a human being's head off or feeding someone, still alive, into a machine that shreds plastic.

Meteora
20-05-2005, 03:12 AM
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter
And yet that doesn't change the fact that many are evil and others are just.

The ones in Guanty belong are the former.

Basically, if you throw tea into the ocean in order to show your displeasure with a tyranny, you are a just freedom fighter. If you throw airplanes into towers in order to show your wish that a government would turn into a theocratic dictatorship, you're a terrorist.

Spire
20-05-2005, 06:42 AM
Episode III is illegal torture.

Leonie
20-05-2005, 09:34 AM
And yet that doesn't change the fact that many are evil and others are just.

The ones in Guanty belong are the former.

Basically, if you throw tea into the ocean in order to show your displeasure with a tyranny, you are a just freedom fighter. If you throw airplanes into towers in order to show your wish that a government would turn into a theocratic dictatorship, you're a terrorist.

You really don't get it, do you? There are heaps of 'terrorists' we call freedom fighters because they fought for a just cause in our opinion. Referring to Che Guevara again, yes.

Men willing to kill for your cause are 'just', because they are on your side and you believe in what they are doing. Thus, torture in Guantanamo Bay is 'just', as the soldiers/guards/whatever there are on your side, interrogating the big bad evil.

Please note that I am in no way saying that beheadings etc in Iraq are 'just'. I don't agree with their actions. I don't agree with torture in American prisons either. What I am trying to make you understand is that from the perspective of a 'terrorist', he is trying to liberate his country from its American invaders. Just as America is trying to liberate that country from terrorists. It's a bloody vicious circle.

The word 'terrorist' means absolutely nothing anymore. Not in the way it is used. As long as we don't realise that 'we', a.k.a. the west, or whatever name we go by these days, are 'terrorising' as well, there is no meaning whatsoever left. Of course the Twin Tower attacks are of a whole different level, and I'm not talking about that in any of my posts. However, the attacks on military, beheadings, kidnappings... the 'other side' might argue they're fighting for freedom, against terrorists.

As I said before, a terrorist is someone who invokes terror, terror being extreme fear. The current meaning, 'man with a beard and a turban', is useless, narrow minded and hypocrite.

There is a difference in aggressive interrogation tactics and torture for the sake of inflicting pain. I had a fraternity brother who was an interrogator in the U.S. Army. When he'd get a little drunk, he'd let us in on a little of what he did. It was a lot more manipulation and intimidation than physical torture. That, was a last resort.
As to what I have seen regarding what has happened at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay pales in comparison to the physical hazing that has traditionally gone on at fraternity houses at universities across America. I don't agree with it, but reality is reality.
And, what went on isn't even on the same planet as sawing a human being's head off or feeding someone, still alive, into a machine that shreds plastic.

So?

Your enemies can do the most atrocious things, but the second you copy their behaviour, the justification being 'it's not half as bad as what they do', you torpedo your own ideological background of justice and democracy, turning everything you stand for into dust. gg.

apoggy
20-05-2005, 09:50 AM
All aboard the KKW Merry-Go-Round. Going round in circles all day long for your viewing pleasure.

hasselbrad
20-05-2005, 12:43 PM
Freedom fighters: Attack military personnel and targets, often operating in an "underground" fashion, due to the overwhelming military superiority of the force they are generally opposing.

Terrorists: Attack civilian targets in order to cause as much chaos and mayhem as possible, dressing as civilians in order to blend in so that they may inflict as much harm as possible.

That's a really big difference.

deviljet88
20-05-2005, 12:54 PM
All aboard the KKW Merry-Go-Round. Going round in circles all day long for your viewing pleasure.
We really needed a theme park ride, w00t :D:D:D

Digital_Ice
20-05-2005, 12:56 PM
"A terrorist is a freedom fighter who attacks you. A freedom fighter is a
terrorist who attacks someone else" - Anon

its all subjective anyway...

Meteora
21-05-2005, 01:28 AM
You really don't get it, do you? There are heaps of 'terrorists' we call freedom fighters because they fought for a just cause in our opinion. Referring to Che Guevara again, yes.
Nay, I get it, but your point is irrelevant. You can argue semantics all you want, but in the end, some are just, some aren't.

It has nothing to do with whose cause they are fighting for. The only thing that matters is if their methods are proportionate to their cause. Mass murder of innocent civilians is disproportionate to any cause. For the sake of comparison... Dumping tea into a bay is proportionate for the cause of advancing freedom and protesting tyranny.

It's not that hard to understand.

Men willing to kill for your cause are 'just', because they are on your side and you believe in what they are doing. Thus, torture in Guantanamo Bay is 'just', as the soldiers/guards/whatever there are on your side, interrogating the big bad evil.
Please learn to read. I've already stated that torture in Guanty is unjust.

Don't make those kinds of assumptions. No where have I hinted that what is just and what isn't has anything to do with my personal causes.

The current meaning, 'man with a beard and a turban', is useless, narrow minded and hypocrite.
That's not the current meaning. Now you're trying to argue against something that doesn't exist.

Well, good luck with that.