Cheney Admits To Torture!

[Lovenotfear]

So, can wee look forward to the Bush administration going on trial??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCW_vLl-3vw

[bluemonday]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

Except of course when it's the US doing the torture in the great war against terror.

America slid off the moral high ground long ago.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

Except of course when it's the US doing the torture in the great war against terror.

America slid off the moral high ground long ago.

 

Did it ever have a moral high ground? We are talking about the American Government here. If American was really waging a war on terror it would be waging war on itself.

 

What strikes me as hypocritical is that the US government wages a war on terror yet it commits acts of terror now and has done so in the past. But the evidence has been around for a while that the Western nations have been complicit in acts of terror, even the UK.

But it is a tricky situation, if the only way to get information from a terrorist is from torture then is it right to torture that person? And what sort of information warrants torturing someone?

[jimbms]

But it is a tricky situation, if the only way to get information from a terrorist is from torture then is it right to torture that person? And what sort of information warrants torturing someone?

Faced with a situation where a person has been captured who is known behond doubt to have planted a device that will kill hundreds in the next 24hrs, there is a choice. 1. Use the namby pamby bleeding heart liberal method and give them food and drink and ask them nicely. 2. Use any method to hand and put them through extreame mental and physical pain and pump them full of psycho-complient drugs until they tell you where the device is. I know my choice and it doesn't involve being nice. That my idealistic, misanthropic young student is the type of situation where torture can be justified. Mind you I wouldn't be averse to methods being practiced on peadophiles just to perfect them and fpr fun.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Faced with a situation where a person has been captured who is known behond doubt to have planted a device that will kill hundreds in the next 24hrs, there is a choice. 1. Use the namby pamby bleeding heart liberal method and give them food and drink and ask them nicely. 2. Use any method to hand and put them through extreame mental and physical pain and pump them full of psycho-complient drugs until they tell you where the device is. I know my choice and it doesn't involve being nice. That my idealistic, misanthropic young student is the type of situation where torture can be justified. Mind you I wouldn't be averse to methods being practiced on peadophiles just to perfect them and fpr fun.

 

Hahaha a misanthrope? You joined the military and I am an anarchist.

 

If you have captured someone that you KNOW has planted a device to kill innocents then I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would object to torture being used, if it was effective. But that is a particular situation that affords you the confidence of knowing that you will definitely be protecting people and when you know that the terrorist is a terrorist and has information.

But then it all gets a bit fuzzy when you have people you suspect of being terrorists or even having terrorist links. What do you do? When is torture not right?

If you have the wife or mother of a known terrorist (the head of the organisation) and you know this woman has very useful information on his whereabouts, would you torture her?

 

A certain problem is the fact nations such as the UK and USA have already stated that they will not employ torture. And when a democracy goes as far as employing the same level of violence on the terrorist as he would on civilians does this not erode liberty and democracy. I think the difficulty is in assessing when it is acceptable and the problem is that with something like this you either allow torture or forbid it. It is something I would have difficult in judging from a liberal and anarchist perspective.

I think where the U.S.A. has gone very wrong is with what it did at Abu Graib and what it is doing Abu at Guantanamo and then there is the hypocrisy of the Western nations operating extraordinary rendition.

 

Jimbms - where would be the cut-off for you? When would terrorism not be acceptable and when would it?

[jimbms]

Terrorism is never acceptable, you take part in terrorism you lose all rights, it is worth noting I define terrorism as acts of violence against non military targets as opposed to freedom fights who only attack legitimate targets

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Terrorism is never acceptable, you take part in terrorism you lose all rights, it is worth noting I define terrorism as acts of violence against non military targets as opposed to freedom fights who only attack legitimate targets

 

What is a legitimate target?

I think that is the best definition. But are politicians classed as civilians? What if there was a repressive regime and someone planted a bomb that killed the politicians, that would appear to be terrorism, but an acceptable form. In respect of the military it does seem a little fuzzy, when the IRA or UVF attack a civilians it is undoubtedly terrorism, but what if the IRA or INLA attack the military, is that insurgency or guerilla warfare. It would appear to be that different strategies can be classed as terrorism or unconventional warfare.

But I think it is quite a difficult thing to define, I certainly do not agree with the definition that the British government uses. I do not agree with attacks on property being acts of terrorism, nor should they be dealt as such.

 

But in the case of torture it is difficult to make a decision if you don't know if you have a terrorist in front of you. How can the state use violence against him when he has not even been brought before a court to determine his guilt. Is this not a problem?

[jimbms]

Terrorism is never acceptable, you take part in terrorism you lose all rights, it is worth noting I define terrorism as acts of violence against non military targets as opposed to freedom fights who only attack legitimate targets

 

What is a legitimate target?

I think that is the best definition. But are politicians classed as civilians? What if there was a repressive regime and someone planted a bomb that killed the politicians, that would appear to be terrorism, but an acceptable form. In respect of the military it does seem a little fuzzy, when the IRA or UVF attack a civilians it is undoubtedly terrorism, but what if the IRA or INLA attack the military, is that insurgency or guerilla warfare. It would appear to be that different strategies can be classed as terrorism or unconventional warfare.

But I think it is quite a difficult thing to define, I certainly do not agree with the definition that the British government uses. I do not agree with attacks on property being acts of terrorism, nor should they be dealt as such.

 

But in the case of torture it is difficult to make a decision if you don't know if you have a terrorist in front of you. How can the state use violence against him when he has not even been brought before a court to determine his guilt. Is this not a problem?

No

[P.K.]

Terrorism is never acceptable, you take part in terrorism you lose all rights, it is worth noting I define terrorism as acts of violence against non military targets as opposed to freedom fighters who only attack legitimate targets

What's the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist?

 

The "terrorist" hasn't won yet. The "freedom fighter" has.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Terrorism is never acceptable, you take part in terrorism you lose all rights, it is worth noting I define terrorism as acts of violence against non military targets as opposed to freedom fighters who only attack legitimate targets

What's the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist?

 

The "terrorist" hasn't won yet. The "freedom fighter" has.

 

They seem to be both badly defined terms and one definition is going to be found. Though I think the government and the media have really muddled things since 9/11. Now attacks against the military in Iraq are called terrorist attacks. And as someone mentioned before the Campaign against Climate Change has been classified as a terrorist group by the FBI, and from their criteria it is. Jimbms gave the most useful and best definition, although legitimate target is something to be omitted as the legitimacy of a target is debatable.

 

P.K. - what about the Iraqi insurgents (or terrorists as they are often called), I have read of them being referred to as freedom fighters. Is it not the case the term simply denotes which side of the conflict you are on? As one is positive and other negative but they also have very different meanings. A freedom fighter can attack anything not just civilians, but terrorism is a term a little more specific.

[P.K.]

It's an old adage "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

 

The dilemma facing any democracy is that knowing some little piece of terrorist shit has left a device somewhere that will kill innocents should you beat the truth out of them and surrender your moral high ground or leave the murderous little turd alone so that the innocents consequently suffer.

 

I personally have no problem with this and would happily put their balls on a trowel to prevent their murderous actions. Naturally I would ensure that they didn't survive the experience. It wouldn't bother my conscience one little bit. If you deliberately set out to kill innocents to "terrorise" and subjugate then as far as I'm concerned you revoke your right to life. Simple as.

[WTF]

It's an old adage "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

 

The dilemma facing any democracy is that knowing some little piece of terrorist shit has left a device somewhere that will kill innocents should you beat the truth out of them and surrender your moral high ground or leave the murderous little turd alone so that the innocents consequently suffer.

 

I personally have no problem with this and would happily put their balls on a trowel to prevent their murderous actions. Naturally I would ensure that they didn't survive the experience. It wouldn't bother my conscience one little bit. If you deliberately set out to kill innocents to "terrorise" and subjugate then as far as I'm concerned you revoke your right to life. Simple as.

 

 

sort of. who has the right to say democracy is how it should be and those against democracy are terrorists?? foreign nationals who don't agree with what we are doing and our way of life enter our country and bomb and kill and shoot and we call them terrorists. yet WE go to iraq because we don't like what they are doing and their way of life and bomb and kill and shoot, but we are the good guys?? branding folks terrorists cos they don't want to comply with what you want is just negative spin in the extreme. all this from countries that have spent their existence travelling the globe and claiming other folks lands and assets as their own. admitted we have given some back on paper, but it isn't independant back to the natives, just to our own decendants who are now the majority and doing it how we want. if all the rest of the world complied with what we wanted under threat of war or being branded a terrorist, WE would be the biggest terrorist of the lot but we wouldn't look at it that way, we would be the good shepherd over all the sheep. speaking of sheep, what happened in tynwald??

[Sebrof]

It's an old adage "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

 

So all "freedom fighters" are simply successful terrorists, and therefore deserve torture and death?

 

The French Resisitance used terrorist tactics. Did they all deserve torture and death?

 

Does it make a difference whose side you are on?

 

Are there any circumstances where terrorism is justified?

 

It's a much more complex issue than some on here would like to think.

 

S

[jimbms]

It's an old adage "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

 

So all "freedom fighters" are simply successful terrorists, and therefore deserve torture and death?

 

The French Resisitance used terrorist tactics. Did they all deserve torture and death?

 

Does it make a difference whose side you are on?

 

Are there any circumstances where terrorism is justified?

 

It's a much more complex issue than some on here would like to think.

 

S

Very true but as I said before in my eyes if the attacks are against military targets or political figures then I deem them to be legitimate targets for a freedom fighter/resistance movement etc. When the target is deliberately against civilian personnel and/or as in the case of the IRA and UDA a side line to drug dealing/protection rackets then it is terrorism ie spreading dissent by fear and terror to the general populace.

[Lao]

A freedom fighter and a terrorist could be considered the same thing depending on what side you are on, media propaganda etc.

 

However when you give it some thought, freedom fighter sounds like a label that should be given to any forces resisting an occupying army in their home country. for example the French resistance during the second world war.

 

Terrorist on the other hand is a darker label which conjures images of a group who target other countries. But unlike when two countries go to war, the terrorist group does not openly declare itself against a foreign power as it most likely does not entirely represent the feeling of its home nation. So while hiding themselves they resort to terror,bombings and threats, which gives them and their political agenda plenty of media coverage. the 9/11 attacks are an example of terrorism.

 

If you think about it like this you can hardly continue to think of the French resistance as a "resistance" if after Germany withdrew from France they had then occupied areas of Germany performing random executions, installing puppet rulers and stripped the country of base resources. They are no longer freedom fighters if, after they have gained their freedom they continue to pursue their enemy. In my example they have become an occupying force.

 

If, however after Germany's withdrawl, France made peace with Germany, but some members of the resistance could not forgive the German people and continued to wage a secret war against them, they would have made the change from freedom fighter to terrorist.

 

But this is all just semantics which takes us away from the original premise of this thread, torture.

(which by the way gets my vote.)