La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Well I am shocked, you did answer without waffle, but as you see this is my point, in some cases it has to be used, but it should not be used as a norm. I didn't answer with waffle because it would be foolish to allow the deaths of children when there was no doubt. But I never did say torture should never happen. Yet it has been conducted of late for reasons which I find unacceptable, as do you. Men are tortured simply for being members of Al Qaeda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 I've debated and chatted with various law students how to answer this question which is always set after roughly the first few lectures in any course on human rights law. My answer is schizophrenic and makes the distinction between justice and the practical reality of law. The world isn't just, but if the rule of law is to mean anything it has to always blindly act for those subject to injustice. Torture is a huge injustice and must always be illegal. If torture occurs those who commit it must be brought to judgement. But I feel the jury is a vital part of justice - it doesn't make law, or change it - citizens elect law-makers and judges interpret law, but juries decide whether they are convinced of the merit of a case or not. If a policeman or a soldier tortures a terrorist and stops an atrocity then I believe they should still come before a jury to explain what was done. In the scenario Jimbms is describing they will almost certainly be found innocent. I cannot see 12 citizens and peers condemning someone who has done such a thing - horrific though it may be - the saved injustice of slaughtered innocents trumps the injustice of the guilty tortured. But the fact is the scenario Jimbms describes is rare - torture usually comes out of the long war of frustration and attrition where little descively changes the battle and in desperation more and more extreme methods are used. And rather than obtaining a single piece of vital evidence the result will more than likely be an incoherent contradictory jumble as the tortured try to satisfy their tormentors - the innocent as well as the guilty will squeal - and the result is of little use. If that occurs the jury will be less forgiving and the convictions of those who do things like occurred in Abu Ghraib will send a message of what is acceptable in a society which attempts to only fight just war. Torture must always be illegal, but I do not think all torturers will be convicted - that is my compromise when asked what to do with a terrorist who has hidden a nuclear bomb or such like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 20, 2009 Author Share Posted April 20, 2009 I have to say I'm pretty shocked by the number of times they used water boarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his Al Qaeda pals. Guardian Clicky There's no doubt the Obama administration has opened up a can of worms in publishing this stuff, Clicky1, clicky2. I have to say I'm not sure much good will come of it. Sure reform, certainly prosecute those shown to have gone beyond the limits, but the way this is being done comes over to me as being a bit to PR dominated. As Chertoff says in this video publicizing this will allow terrorists to better prepare - I'd have kept such issues out of the press - sure allow prosecutors etc to review it, courts are used to dealing with secret material. Justice does need to be seen to be done, but that doesn't been turning it into a press circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SScott Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Torture seldom works. You beat a man enough and he'll tell you anything you want to hear to make the pain stop, that doesn't necessarily mean anything he says is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tucker Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Are those links genuine ? reason i ask is because of the really rubbish spelling (even for Americans) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Did you know that Knoxville is an anagram of "I llove kox"? Spooky. Your grasp of anagrams is spooky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Did you know that Knoxville is an anagram of "I llove kox"? Spooky. Your grasp of anagrams is spooky. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Well never mind - Knoxville is too thick to notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 Did you know that Knoxville is an anagram of "I llove kox"? Spooky. Your grasp of anagrams is spooky. Rubbish. It should have been 'I love klox'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knoxville Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Well never mind - Knoxville is too thick to notice. Took your time to get involved cum chops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Sorry i cant see anything wrong with the methods used. IMO as soon as you become a "terrorist" and purposely aim to kill innocent civilians then your human rights can f*ck right off.. These pieces of sh1t got off lightly. I bet the young russian conscripts would have loved to have been questioned in this manner, rather than the talibans horific methods, then afterwards having their bowels cut open and pulled out, their achillies tendons sliced with a knife and then left in the mountains for the animals to eat them alive.. so yeah any torture is too good for them. They dont abide by the geneva convention so we dont need to with them IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Sorry i cant see anything wrong with the methods used. IMO as soon as you become a "terrorist" and purposely aim to kill innocent civilians then your human rights can f*ck right off.. These pieces of sh1t got off lightly. I bet the young russian conscripts would have loved to have been questioned in this manner, rather than the talibans horific methods, then afterwards having their bowels cut open and pulled out, their achillies tendons sliced with a knife and then left in the mountains for the animals to eat them alive.. so yeah any torture is too good for them. They dont abide by the geneva convention so we dont need to with them IMO. Sorry to be blunt, but that is not really a very bright attitude to take. A terrorist killing civilians does the same as any other murdered killing innocents - they murder. These are criminal acts. Now in a liberal democratic regime the 'normal' murdered is brought to trial and given a life sentence. In other words, there is a set procedure for dealing with people who commit criminal acts. Such procedures cannot be completely abandoned simply because the person's criminal acts fall under a definition of terrorism. I don't know why you mention the Taliban. And I don't see how the Geneva Convention applies in any case. They are not soldiers of a state army. I think maybe that rather than recognise torture for its true purpose you seem to want to see it fitting into some idea of punishment for those who are members of Al Qaeda. But that is a separate issue really, though it certainly isn't a feasible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Sorry to be blunt, but that is not really a very bright attitude to take. A terrorist killing civilians does the same as any other murdered killing innocents - they murder. These are criminal acts. Now in a liberal democratic regime the 'normal' murdered is brought to trial and given a life sentence. In other words, there is a set procedure for dealing with people who commit criminal acts. Such procedures cannot be completely abandoned simply because the person's criminal acts fall under a definition of terrorism. Your saying a murderer who kills 1 person is the same as a Terrorist who kills 3000? Nope I cant see how you come to that conclusion at all. I don't know why you mention the Taliban. Taliban/Al Qaeda are interlinked. And I don't see how the Geneva Convention applies in any case. They are not soldiers of a state army. Thats funny because the fighters in Al Qaeda "claim" they are soldiers fighting a war. I think maybe that rather than recognise torture for its true purpose you seem to want to see it fitting into some idea of punishment for those who are members of Al Qaeda. But that is a separate issue really, though it certainly isn't a feasible idea. Er no. Being in jail is punishment enough. Its blatently clear why you need to interogate Terrorists. Their tactics and systems are needed to be understood to help the western countries protect their citizens. The only way you find that out is by interogating the captured people. From what the ex US vp has said recently it sounds like they got exactly this information. God knows how many people lives have been saved by interogating the terrorists. I cant quite understand why you think protecting innocent people is a bad thing... Very strange. It seems to me you seem to have some fluffy idea that you ask terrorists a question and they will say everything they know while having a cup of tea... or even worse you think they should be allowed to withhold what they know. I dont agree there, if your a terrorist i want my gov to batter them half to death to get them to say everything they know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 so yeah any torture is too good for them. They dont abide by the geneva convention so we dont need to with them IMO. That arguments pointless IMO, we'd all soon be the lowest of the lowest human scum if we went along with that attitude. There'd be nothing worth fighting for after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 They dont abide by the geneva convention so we dont need to with them IMO. Putting aside the issue of whether those tortured were enemy combatants, the Geneva Convention does not cease to apply to one side simply because the other site does not abide by it. That's the equivalent of you giving your brother a dead arm then pleading to your mum 'But he started it!'. Two wrongs don't make a right. Cheney's argument that torturing detainees yielded highly valuable and reliable intelligence results not reasonably obtainable by other means is dubious and, even if true, does not excuse what was done. The price you pay for riding roughshod over the rule of law in order to exact brutal torture on captured prisoners is not worth paying, regardless of the outcome. I consider him to be an unspeakable c**t of the highest order - that he still has the audacity to claim the moral high ground beggars belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.