Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Phokus
-snip-
that there was NEVER a justification for torture EVER. The treaty he signed compels us to prosecute torture.
Those of you asserting the "no torture ever rule" continue to cite the GC (as in the OP's links). It would behoove you to read it.
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
See the above bolded section. I.e., acts that otherwise qualify as "torture" are permissable if performed "arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions"
Simply put the GC itself says there are times (circumstances) where torture is OK. Wow! How do you rconcile that?
But this goes back to one of the fundamental issues of disagrement - what is the definition of torture?
The GC includes such a broad and liberal definition that it finds itself sanctioning/permitting acts it decribes as "torture" if done under a country's laws. (See this link for a discussion of that problematic loophole. E.g., cutting offf someone's hand might be torture to us in the Western world, but is sanctioned under Sharia law as practiced in some Muslim countries'
Link )
This debate is not really about "torture", even thought the left is trying to cast it in that way. It's a common tactic to start off a debate by defining the terms in a manner beneifical to your position. No one is for torture (breaking bones, burning flesh etc), but many support the use of harsh interrogation tactics under certain limited circumstances. (See
Pew Reseacrh Center Poll the 'never justifed group ia at only 25%)
I don't think torture is OK, but then I (like many others) don't consider the definition so broad as to include all harsh interrogation as torture. And I think harsh interrogation is OK in very limited circumstances, I cetainly couldn't allow millions to die because I didn't wanna get harsh with a terrorist. I wouldn't want that on my concious (and isn't that what morals are about?)
You do know that the UN has ruled that the use of tasers constitute torture (
U.N.: Tasers Are A Form Of Torture ). Are you picking and choosing what under the UN (and the GC was done under the UN) qualifies as torture? And if so, why? - For political purposes? Why do you support the UN/GC if it permits torture under certain circumstances? Why are you not up in arms about the UN defined torture (tasering) committed daily against innocent citizens in the United States?
When are harsh interrogation tactics permissable? You disagree with the ticking bomb circumstance? You would allow millions of others to die because of
your morals? What kind of morals are those? Perhaps noble if you would sacrifice
yourself for
your sense of morals, but hardly noble to sacrifice other people. In fact, that's the very definition of selfish.
Even Bill Clinton acknowleged the ticking bomb exception.
I suppose you consider all those who fought for the US in WWII (and all other conflicts) immoral? I'm sure many, if not all, had moral objections to killing another human yet they did so for the noble purpose of WWII.
Morals are a code of conduct, but that's what religion is about isn't it? A code of conduct. Somehow those whose morals spring from a form of religion are dangerous and denounced here frequently, oddly by the same lot who want to impose their morals no matter how many other must sacrifieced. You don't want them imposing their morals on anyone else, but it's OK for yours to be imposed on others? That's flat-out hypocrisy.
Fern
