Thread: I got your torture right here.

Originally Posted by dex71

So again....What exactly is torture? How far should we be able to go?

How can anyone here be for it or againsed it when no one seems to be able to define it?

I'll tell you, by precedent, waterboarding is going too far. Check the link I posted before, we held war crime trials and convicted war criminals for doing none other than, waterboarding.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

If they are POWs, why do they get civilian trials with civilian attorneys under civilian laws? I don't recall letting German, Italian, or Japanese POWs contest their imprisonment by giving them million dollar lawyers and a favorable set of rules. We held them for the duration, without charge, because they were enemy combatants, hence the term Prisoner of War.

It's funny how during an election, your candidate mentions David Petraeus at least a thousand times in a news cycle when it comes to our troops, yet you don't defer to him when it comes to torture and whether it is necessary......... Is he not good enough anymore to quote, if he doesn't back your argument?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051001963.html

and another quote from the General..........

This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we -- not our enemies -- occupy the moral high ground. This strategy has shown results in recent months. AL Qaeda's indiscriminate attacks, for example, have finally started to turn a substantial portion of the Iraqi population against it...
I... know firsthand the bonds between members of the 'brotherhood of the close fight.' Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge. As hard as it may be, however, we must not let those emotions lead us... to commit hasty, illegal actions...
Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone "talk;" however, what the individual says may be of questionable value...
In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also human beings.

Originally Posted by asianator365

If they are POWs, why do they get civilian trials with civilian attorneys under civilian laws? I don't recall letting German, Italian, or Japanese POWs contest their imprisonment by giving them million dollar lawyers and a favorable set of rules. We held them for the duration, without charge, because they were enemy combatants, hence the term Prisoner of War.

And your point is?

If you have a problem with how they are tried and who tries/defends them, take that up with the courts. The fact of the matter is, if they are officially POWs, then Geneva Convention applies. If they aren't officially POW's, but enemy combatants, I believe the GC still applies........

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by asianator365

If they are POWs, why do they get civilian trials with civilian attorneys under civilian laws? I don't recall letting German, Italian, or Japanese POWs contest their imprisonment by giving them million dollar lawyers and a favorable set of rules. We held them for the duration, without charge, because they were enemy combatants, hence the term Prisoner of War.

And your point is?

If you have a problem with how they are tried and who tries/defends them, take that up with the courts. The fact of the matter is, if they are officially POWs, then Geneva Convention applies. If they aren't officially POW's, but enemy combatants, I believe the GC still applies........

My point is this: I think if we are going to try them in civilian courts under civilian rules/laws, they should be tortured/interrogated/strongly questioned. My reasoning? Any lawyer worth anything should be able to get them off on some technicality; fact is, civilian laws are hard to observe on a battlefield. May as well get something useful out of them since they are going to be roaming around freely soon. On the other hand, if we are going to imprison them like we have POWs in the past, I don't support torture, although I am open to interrogations (forceful questioning; no permanent physical harm).

Originally Posted by dex71

So what do you propose we do? We obviously need to be able to interrogate,and if lives can be saved,how do we go about it? Even though we honor it,does the GC apply to terrorists? What about drugging them with Sodium Pentathol?

Personally,I'm not against waterboarding,but playing Kanye West is going too far.

I'll tell you how we go about interrogating them, the same way they did it before Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yu, and Bybee tried to rewrite the rules on the GC in general, and torture specifically.

One does not need to torture in order to interrogate properly/successfully. Like I said before, I believe the courts ruled that the GC applies. Idunno about the Sodium Pentathol......

Two things I forgot: We should spend a lot of money (we seem to be doing that on worthless crap a lot lately) on chemical assisted interrogations. Get some researchers something to do, maybe learn a little bit more about the human psyche, and get something useful out of it all at the same time. I also forgot to mention that I don't think any of our troops in the world today expect to be treated according to the Geneva Convention if they are captured.

And I had a question (more just to get other people's opinions/thoughts on it than anything else): If we expect our military personnel to be treated according to the Geneva Convention, what about military and civilian contractors in a war zone?

Originally Posted by asianator365

Originally Posted by hawgballs

Originally Posted by asianator365

If they are POWs, why do they get civilian trials with civilian attorneys under civilian laws? I don't recall letting German, Italian, or Japanese POWs contest their imprisonment by giving them million dollar lawyers and a favorable set of rules. We held them for the duration, without charge, because they were enemy combatants, hence the term Prisoner of War.

And your point is?

If you have a problem with how they are tried and who tries/defends them, take that up with the courts. The fact of the matter is, if they are officially POWs, then Geneva Convention applies. If they aren't officially POW's, but enemy combatants, I believe the GC still applies........

My point is this: I think if we are going to try them in civilian courts under civilian rules/laws, they should be tortured/interrogated/strongly questioned. My reasoning? Any lawyer worth anything should be able to get them off on some technicality; fact is, civilian laws are hard to observe on a battlefield. May as well get something useful out of them since they are going to be roaming around freely soon. On the other hand, if we are going to imprison them like we have POWs in the past, I don't support torture, although I am open to interrogations (forceful questioning; no permanent physical harm).

Does not compute...........
Civilian Courts=OK to torture?
POW=Not OK to torture?

Since when does our civilian court system condone torture? Why should it do so in regards to enemy combatants? Torture is torture.

Originally Posted by asianator365

Two things I forgot: We should spend a lot of money (we seem to be doing that on worthless crap a lot lately) on chemical assisted interrogations. Get some researchers something to do, maybe learn a little bit more about the human psyche, and get something useful out of it all at the same time. I also forgot to mention that I don't think any of our troops in the world today expect to be treated according to the Geneva Convention if they are captured.

And I had a question (more just to get other people's opinions/thoughts on it than anything else): If we expect our military personnel to be treated according to the Geneva Convention, what about military and civilian contractors in a war zone?

I remember a country that not only condoned torturing it's enemies, but they also did research on prisoners to "learn a little bit more about the human psyche, and get something useful out of it all at the same time"........ I seem to recall Nazi Germany.