Well. This ain't good.

[Deacon]

Out of curiosity, can someone clear something up for me? The Geneva Convention appears to be referred to and equated to "international law". If this is correct, I'm misunderstanding one of two things:

1) The nature of the Geneva Convention
2) What comprises "international law"

Posted Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:54 am:

[quote="Mr.Shroom";p="463237"]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[/quote]
Really, we have yet to even specify what constitutes "torture".

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'?

I think perhaps the answer lies in specifying the circumstances surrounding such things. Are we talking about civlians? Military personnel? Spies? Whoever it is, are we talking about being captured and tortured by another nation's government? By terrorists? Or what?

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

Wait, so anything to which an absolute, black-and-white, high-level policy can be applied is intrinsically and inherently "wrong"?

Posted Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:57 am:

Also, Fixer's notion confuses me. "I would do something I believed was right and necessary, and I would fully expect to be punished for it." (paraphrase). That doesn't really compute with me. It sounds like anyone who's ever caused injury or harm in self defense should be prosecuted for doing so.

[mikehendo]

[quote="Fixer";p="463244"]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.[/quote]

So you want to create a new class of martyrs? Those who tortured someone for info, knowing that they would pay a price for it?

[Deacon]

"FREEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOM!"

[Fixer]

[quote="Deacon";p="463257"]Also, Fixer's notion confuses me. "I would do something I believed was right and necessary, and I would fully expect to be punished for it." (paraphrase). That doesn't really compute with me. It sounds like anyone who's ever caused injury or harm in self defense should be prosecuted for doing so.[/quote]
They should be tried to see if they were defending themselves or not, yes. If it was self-defense, then their means of defending themselves must be examined to see if it was excessive for the circumstances. If they were defending themselves and did not use excessive means then the court would probably find them innocent by count of self-defense, but they should still be tried.

[quote="mikehendo";p="463269"]So you want to create a new class of martyrs? Those who tortured someone for info, knowing that they would pay a price for it?[/quote]
An example:

If I were to discover that someone was planning to attack Detroit. I don't live there, so I am not personally in danger and there is no self-defense involved.

At the time that I discover this, I am not in contact with the authorities and there is a time window involved where the attack would occur before the information source could be legally interrogated. Regardless of whether or not I work for the government in the appropriate capacity, I'd be putting a hurting on the source of information to extract the necessary details and do everything within my power to get it to the proper authorities in time to prevent the attack.

I would have broken the law in this instance, because I engaged in torture. I may very well have prevented the deaths of thousands of people (or I could have been too late to do anything), but I would still have broken the law and should pay an appropriate penalty. Does this make me a martyr? Depends on how you view torture and if you saw the actions as justified. The rules should be crystal clear as to who would and would not be guilty of torture, instead of making it a judgement call based on circumstance. Punishment itself should be mitigated for circumstance, but not guilt or innocence.

[Deacon]

[quote="Fixer";p="463289"]If it was self-defense, then their means of defending themselves must be examined to see if it was excessive for the circumstances. If they were defending themselves and did not use excessive means then the court would probably find them innocent by count of self-defense, but they should still be tried.[/quote]
I don't agree. That's not how it works in the real world. First they must determine whether they believe illegal actions have taken place. In other words, they must investigate matters and determine whether they have a case. And in regards to determining "excessive" measures of self-defense, I can only condone that if the measures taken are grossly excessive.

[Mr.Shroom]

Lets go ahead and define torture. Torture is to cause intense feelings of suffering (physically, emotionally or mentally) in an individual inorder to reach a certain end or desire from said individual.

Thats different than most interregations, which as MartinBlank stated, often takes the form of manipulation, often even befriending a person. What occurs in the book 1984 is a good example of torture.

Wait, so anything to which an absolute, black-and-white, high-level policy can be applied is intrinsically and inherently "wrong"?

I'm afraid I really don't know what you're trying to say here, Deacon, so I'm not sure how to reply. I THINK I know what you mean, but I'm not sure. Could you please rephrase it more clearly?

I think perhaps the answer lies in specifying the circumstances surrounding such things. Are we talking about civlians? Military personnel? Spies? Whoever it is, are we talking about being captured and tortured by another nation's government? By terrorists? Or what?

Thats a rather good point, one which I hadn't considered, and one which does indeed need clarification.

In terms of miltary personnel: When they accept a role in the defense of their country, does this truly change the nature of their rights? Is a military person now simply an 'asset' rather than a 'person'? Will we accept that as a personal choice of the human being whom made the choice? The act of duty? Do they break all ties and die at the hands of torture? And if so, why would be bother torturing the military personnel of OTHER nations, if THEY were SUPPOSED to die without telling us anything?

Its yet another contradiction, that only 'wins out' on human weakness. We either end up with a corpse, or with a shamed human being who cannot return home without being branded a traitor. Then what do we do with them? Expect them to live with the people who stole their world? Or commit an act of bitter mercy and execute them, perhaps as an 'example'? Or just make them disappear? Does burying our mistakes make them not exist? Does commiting terrible acts to 'intimidate' others make us less of a terrorizing force?

And what OF civilians? What possible information would they have that one could not get from personal information? What purpose would you have BEYOND to torment not the civilian, but the NATION the civilian comes from? With that, torture of a civilian turns only the government whom does it into terrorists: Those who dispense terror to get at a goal. Do we wish to become the same?

And in terms of self-defense.

If someone is commiting a life-threatening act against you or another that you CANNOT prevent without use of violence or murder, then I suppose that IS self-defense.

But lets try to put that in terms of nations against nations. Are entire nations of people REALLY unable to solve their differences without the use of murder or violence? Why? If so, why have we bothered to waste our time with efforts for peace?

[ajaxrynu]

Dang, and I was having fun with Ed...

Oh well...

[Deacon]

Mr.Shroom, you really ought to start reading your stuff in dimly lit coffee houses. Convoluted stream of consciousness that wind up far from the point of origin and ask simplistic, almost intentionally naive yes-or-no questions that have no true yes or no answer...I'm sure that kind of thing would be well received with a satisfied round of snaps.

[Blinker]

Deacon, why don't you put your thoughts on the line instead of bashing or questioning everyone else in this forum?

Seriously, Deacon, you are a smart, articulate person... when you are not flaming people. Instead of just criticizing, offer rebuttals.

[Deacon]

Offering responses to his post would be daunting due purely to the overwhelming breadth and complexity of topics covered, and I would not be satisfied with a curt answer to them all. Plus, I've pretty much already made my feelings known. Additionally, my response was not intended to be a flame, more like me slumping back in my chair, shrugging, and shaking my head slowly as if to say, "Wow. How do I even begin?" Not that he's necessarily wrong, but it feels like biting off three triple-meat hamburgers and trying to cram the whole thing in your mouth and chew it at the same time. Or better analogy would be a chicken leg, pork chop, etc with the hamburger

[Blinker]

mmm... chicken leg.... holy crap... I'm going to KFC.

btw, thanks for the response. makes more sense now

[CyberEd]

[quote="Mr.Shroom";p="463237"]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?[/quote]
first off the US has already done that in a few cases...
just an example: imagine what would happen if in a search for Islamic jihad Israel would bomb the hell out of gaza with F-16 for a week, then go in with ground forces, not allowing media in the region until the show is over ? yet the US bombed cities for days in both Afghanistan and Iraq...

second the emeny the US is currently fighting is not signed on ANY petition and does not agree to ANY code of conduct. when an american soldier is captured in Iraq he probably WILL be tortured, if not for info - for the show that would be broadcasted in El-Jazira.
what reason does the US have to treat it's enemies with silk gloves if the enemy refuses to act the same ?

you keep asking moral questions shroom, let me ask you a pragmatic one. other than torture, what methods of acquiring information (in a short period of time) from emenies do you know ? playing checkers just won't crack those guys...

[Fixer]

I am not Mr. Shroom, but I feel inclined to answer some of these.

[quote="CyberEd";p="463807"]second the emeny the US is currently fighting is not signed on ANY petition and does not agree to ANY code of conduct. when an american soldier is captured in Iraq he probably WILL be tortured, if not for info - for the show that would be broadcasted in El-Jazira.
what reason does the US have to treat it's enemies with silk gloves if the enemy refuses to act the same ?[/quote]
Your debate is one of law, not morality. Equality as opposed to right-and-wrong. You are attempting to compare apples and oranges so there really is no valid way to answer this, although I look forward to reading Shroom's attempt.

you keep asking moral questions shroom, let me ask you a pragmatic one. other than torture, what methods of acquiring information (in a short period of time) from emenies do you know ? playing checkers just won't crack those guys...

Stress. Extreme stress caused by placing them into a compromising situation or one of complete and utter frustration or helplessness. Causing them to lose all control over their life, their well-being, and their choices. Then let them gain it back, IF they give you the information you need.

Not nice, but not brutal either. The suffering is limited and relatively humane and preventable by the target.

[Deacon]

So physical suffering is not OK, but things like loud Britney playing over the PA system, lights on 24/7, etc, are not? I'm still caught up in the (quite interesting) discussion as to what actually constitutes "torture".

[Mr.Shroom]

The UN speaks up. Big shock.

[quote="Deacon";p="463374"]Mr.Shroom, you really ought to start reading your stuff in dimly lit coffee houses. Convoluted stream of consciousness that wind up far from the point of origin and ask simplistic, almost intentionally naive yes-or-no questions that have no true yes or no answer...[/quote]

Ha-BUH? What, are you KIDDING? That wasn't a demand for absolutes, it was a demand for FEEDBACK. Theres a shitload of room for plenty of fresh takes, opinions, and the like to what I'm asking. Hence why it was asked.

If you think its black and white; fine, then tell me WHICH side of your self-constructed fence yer sitting on.

Offering responses to his post would be daunting due purely to the overwhelming breadth and complexity of topics covered, and I would not be satisfied with a curt answer to them all.

Oh, bullshit. :p No one's asking you to gimmie factoids. Pontificate away, if you've got something to SAY; thats WHY I broached the subject. You had a GREAT point that NEEDED introspection. Don't bail out on me now!

I agree; its a shitload to deal with. We're talking about a pretty damn complex subject. But I'm not saying you can't cut your hamburger in half first, neither.

So physical suffering is not OK, but things like loud Britney playing over the PA system, lights on 24/7, etc, are not? I'm still caught up in the (quite interesting) discussion as to what actually constitutes "torture".

While that DOES cause suffering in you personally, since the intention of the music isn't actually done to get you to give into a demand or consend to a goal, it isn't 'torture', its simply 'personally tormenting'. If you were strapped to a chair and had all those things done to you untill you gave up the microfilm? Yes, thats torture, alibit a lesser one. If you're at the mall and thats whats going on? Its just personally torturing you.

We're talking about the microfilm-dealy. Clearer?

The reason we shouldn't react the same, CyberEd, is because if we keep going down the path of 'Eye For An Eye', we're all going to end up blind. And MartinBlank already answered your second question. While 'buttering them up' wouldn't work in the short period of time, blackmail and hardball INTERREGATION works just fine.

Interegation is NOT the same as torture. Its a state of discomfort, NOT physical/mental/emotional suffering. One makes you squirm and sweat, the other makes you scream and leak bodily fluids. See the difference?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to explain that earlier comment, Deacon. Hasn't gotten any more clear to my limited perceptions.