Well. This ain't good.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:51 pm

Deacon, I'll put it as clear as I can. there's a jewish saying "with a matter of life and death the Sabbath can be broken" (simple translation), the sabbath being the holiest day. and must never be broken. however life is holier than anything.
when the cause is saving lives evey means are justified.

Fuggle, what can I do. this isn't a perfect world. it could have been great if people didn't have to die at all. it could have been great if there was no war or hatered. and if santa did exist, and the tooth-fairy... sorry...

BadMonkey,
a. where does it say anything about interrogation methods ?
b. what do you think the Mossad would have done with him ? play backgammon ?

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:59 pm

I realize that, Ed.

Which is why I said while it's still wrong, it can be apropriate.

But just because it's neccessary and the best of all bad options doesn't make it a good thing (witness, also, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...)...

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 9:10 pm

mikehendo, Ed's from Isreal where torture is legal. Its a more accepted part of their way of doing things than ours. I'm not saying I agree, just that he probably has a bit of a different perspective than the rest of us. historically we haven't had to worry about a pregnant woman driving a car loaded with explosives into the pizza place that we're sitting in so while I don't believe torture is moral, I realize that I don't have the same perspective on certain things.

BadMonkey · Post by **BadMonkey** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:15 pm

CyberEd, That's not the point. The Filipino's did some downright horrible things to him in their "Tactical Interrogation", beating him near to death, yet he didn't talk.
It was only when someone in Filipino Intelligence pretended that he was Mossad agent about to do an Eichmann on him that he was so scared that agreed to cooperate.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:17 pm

"Do an Eichmann"?

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 11:38 pm

You know, like what the people in the World Trade Center were doing that justified the terrorist actions of 9/11. Apparently he threatened to trade money with the guy or something.

mikehendo · Post by **mikehendo** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:01 am

[quote="naval_aviator_2040";p="462462"]mikehendo, Ed's from Isreal where torture is legal. Its a more accepted part of their way of doing things than ours. I'm not saying I agree, just that he probably has a bit of a different perspective than the rest of us. historically we haven't had to worry about a pregnant woman driving a car loaded with explosives into the pizza place that we're sitting in so while I don't believe torture is moral, I realize that I don't have the same perspective on certain things.[/quote]

My post still deserved a response though. In this case we were referring to the US, not Isreal. Dont even get me started on all the screwed up things that country does..

Post by **Martin Blank** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 4:31 am

While I'm sure that Mossad deals harshly on occasion with interrogation subjects, if you want to truly get in someone's head, subtlety works far better. I wish I could find it again, but a few months ago I read an interview by someone who was named as a former high-ranking interrogator for Mossad, and he talked in general about the techniques used to extract information from subjects. Even though the words were almost casual, it was chilling the lengths that the man would go to in order to get into the person's head.

He would get photos from when and where the person grew up, learn the names of old teachers and mentors and have secret agents cladestinely interview some of them. He spent weeks virtually memorizing the Quran and then challenged a Palestinian religious sect leader with questions on it, where if he stumped the prisoner, the prisoner had to answer a question, and without a Quran in front of him, he took the man apart with minutiae. Even when asked questions by the prisoner, he usually could quote entire verses, in context, in answer.

Note that this takes time. If the attack is scheduled for tonight, this may not work so well. But if you have months and weeks, this is a far, far more effective way of doing things.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:19 pm

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="462498"]"Do an Eichmann"?[/quote]

Adolf Eichmann was a natzi war criminal (he was in charge of the death camps if I'm not mistaken). the Mossad located him in argentina in the 60's and brought him to trial in Israel. (a wee hijack...)

he is the only man ever to receive a death penalty in Israel.

Posted Tue Mar 08, 2005 4:28 pm:

[quote="mikehendo";p="462426"]torture is bad, mmkay? We have the geneva convention for a reason. Namely because people were using torture as a valid way to get information. If you want to make torture valid again, dont go complaining when more Americans get killed.
We are supposed to be above that, as is most of the modern world. When you start pretending that those fancy treaties, or the words in the Constitution dont make sense anymore, you are losing what it means to be a democratic country that respects civil liberties.[/quote]

sorry I didn't address that earlier, I just thought you'd get pissed off if you hear what I have to say... and it IS kinda off subject...

anyway, here it is:

a. geneva is about the right treatment of POW's rather than civilians/terrorists plotting against ones own coutry or a country they are staying in. geneva is a war treaty, not a civil rights treaty...
b. nobody ACTUALLY goes by the geneva pact. heck the US is breaking it as we speak: M-16, the granade launcher on an M-16 (M 216 I think is it's name - I forgot). and lots and lots of other weapons that are banned. geneva's a joke...

ajaxrynu · Post by **ajaxrynu** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:23 pm

Oh, I remember hearing about this a while ago. I thought someone had posted about this.

The launcher is called the M-203. Just wondering, why is it banned? I'm looking for refrences to weapons banned by the conventions, but I can't find anything. Which Convention are you refering too? I know that there are refrences to use of weaponry that causes unessesary pain (like using hollow points instead of FMJ bullets). I don't think that a grenade launcher would count though....

Here's a link to the Conventions.

And I'm pretty sure its Nazi, not Natzi.

OK, I just got done reading all four of the Geneva Conventions and didn't see a damn thing about banned weapons. The only thing close to it that I found was the Geneva Protocol, but that deals with chemical and biological weapons. What are you refering too, CyberEd? The Law of Armed Conflict? This is all I could find refering to restrictions of explosive projectiles.Declaration and its Ratification.

Well, here is the site I got it from. Also take a look at this PDF.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:08 pm

a. it's not 'Z' it's 'ZZ' or 'TZ' which is a letter not found in english...

b. we all agree that M-16 is a weapon forbidden by international law ? (5.56 being too light and causing 'excessive injury' ?

c. the m-203 as you may or may not know can fire many types of grenades. a couple are incendiary and as far as I know are no longer in use.

it can also fire a grenade (who's name I don't know in english) which we used to call bouncing mine, basically what it does is jump a couple of times, and expload (behind the emenies defences hopefully).
this latter grenade is forbidden according to the "Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices" (Protocol II), 1342 U.N.T.S. 168, 19 I.L.M. 1529, entered into force Dec. 2, 1983; as amended May 3, 1996, 35 I.L.M. 1206.
other devices being "means manually-emplaced munitions and devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time."
other than the usual grenade these are the only two grenades I can remember ever seeing fired (the first was in a demonstration, the second in an ambush...)
I don't know anything about the 100+ other types of grenades.

also I can't really find it anywhere but I was told (in the army) that there's a law saying: one should not use anti-tank weapons against human soldiers. which is broken on a day to day basis with the grenade launcher...

but this is off topic. the fact that the weapons the US uses is not compatible with the international law is a farce since the AK (kalatch) is just as bad. and the enemy the US is fighting don't really care what kind of ammo they are shooting (human bombs are legit to them...) and they don't really care who gets hurt (civilians, police, americans - they don't give a shit)

bottom line is - laws and pacts and all are fine and dandy on diplomatic occations.
war is ugly. bad things happen during wartime including breaking of the international laws and torture.

indeed it's bad. but that's life. welcome to the real world

ajaxrynu · Post by **ajaxrynu** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:08 pm

Just beacuase a launcer can fire types of grenades dosen't mean that the US military uses said grenades. Could you site a source for incidents where the M203 was used against non-hardened or vehicular targets?

I've heard of a "Bouncing Betty" before, but not a grenade form. Here is what the US Army has to say about the M203. Also, here is what types of ordenance the launcher uses. As you can see none of them violates LOAC.

Also, why would the 5.56x45 mm ammo be banned?

Granted I will agree that individuals who are not held responsible for their actions will do pretty much anything, including those that vilolate international law. However, those laws are only vaild to those countires that RATIFIED the treaties. I'm not trying to defend the CIA or FBI or whomever sent those individuals to other countires to be tortured. I am, however, defending the US Military against your accusations.

Mr.Shroom · Post by **Mr.Shroom** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:08 pm

Its the New Scientist interview you're talking about, MartinBlank, but you need to pay and suscribe now to read it. Pity.

But lets focus on something. Lets focus on a rather blunt issue we HAVE to deal with conserning torture.

If we make it a matter of policy to allow torture to be commited against human beings if it could possibly give us information to secure our national security, how can we possibly ever justify any outrage or indignity we have when a United States citizen is captured and tortured for another nation's conserns towards their 'national security'?

What, will we simply demand that other nations "Do what we say, not what we do"? We will kowtow to our hypocricy and instantly send out threats and take violent actions to protect our tortured countrymen?

And will we act shocked and indignant when other countries do the same to protect THEIR tortured countrymen?

The torture of human beings for such reasons is wrong simply because it causes these contradictions in our logic and moral ethics.

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:17 pm

On a personal level, if I had to torture someone to get information to protect lives, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Now, that being said, I would also fully expect to go to jail for it, because it should be against the law. I may be able to protect society by a criminal act, but it would still be a criminal act and should be prosectuted.

So, I think torture should be illegal, but also making the penalties for torture take into account mitigating circumstances. They should never allow someone to get off without some sort of discipline or imprisonment for their actions, regardless of the semi-nobility of those actions.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:22 pm

Agreed with Fixer, largely, as was said earlier: sometimes it's the better alternative, but that shouldn't make it not illegal.

Real Life Forums

Well. This ain't good.

Re: Well. This ain't good.

Who is online