Wait, why are we even debating with conservatives over torture anyway? We could end the debate easily.

[Moonbeam]

I personally struggle with the morality and immorality of this incredibly 'gray' issue. One of the best posts I've read in a long time. Thanks Fern.

I can imagine you would fantasizing the issue is remotely gray. Torture is wrong, period, no ifs ands or buts.

 

[Moonbeam]

"You are reading that wrong. It does not say there are times torture is OK. It says not all pain and suffering is torture. For example handcuffs can be painful. Making a prisoner wear handcuffs for lawful purposes is not torture."

Exactly what I think is implied. You can't torture people but neither can you have them sue for release because jail is emotionally discomforting.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I personally struggle with the morality and immorality of this incredibly 'gray' issue. One of the best posts I've read in a long time. Thanks Fern.

I can imagine you would fantasizing the issue is remotely gray. Torture is wrong, period, no ifs ands or buts.

Look...I can see both sides of the arguments and struggle with it...sorry if that bothers you.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I think what Charles Krauthamer said was spot on.

Can't have pussies making military decisions. I've heard himself say that torture should be a last resort, but if you know the bad guy has info, and he knows where a nuke about to go off its, GET THE INFO. Don't be a pussy and let 1,000,000 people die just because you didn't have the balls to act. That makes the person who didn't torture a much worse individual than the guy who decided to waterboard, or w/e. It's a battle of "lesser evils"

It's pussies (ahem, liberal pussification of america) that won't fight the real fight and will end up losing their ass to people much worse then republicans.

That certainly isn't stopping you from pretending to make military decisions.

 

[MikeMike]

liberal fanatic alert, fricking liberal commie bastard...

hey, if he throws poo, i can too.

while waterboarding IS torture, i see the liberals jumping all over any and everything they can to try and discredit the R's because they fear some of the stupid shit Obama is doing.

 

[Arkaign]

I am a classical conservative with very liberal social ideas, basically I think people should be as free as possible to do what they want, so long as the exercise of that freedom doesn't infringe on anyone else's property, freedom, or safety.

That said, torture is a scumbag technique, and one that we should leave to nations and groups of lesser importance than what the USA has accomplished. All kinds of regimes readily employed torture, and are now footnotes in history (Stalin's USSR, Hitler's 3rd Reich, Hirohito's Imperial Japan, and so on). Our intelligence agencies and military have been very successful for a very long time WITHOUT the use of these subhuman techniques. We can continue to do so.

Terrorism is an almost mythical threat compared to the level of destruction a fully industrialized and dedicated national enemy can bring, by war or by mass genocide. If North Korea went totally batshit right this moment, in less than 24 hours tens of millions could die. That's a far cry from all terrorism of the past 200 years put together into one sum. Hell, the fucking flu will kill ~30,000 people in the United States this year, and I'm not counting Swine Flu. Terrorism is the refuge of the weak, and torture is the refuge of those with zero moral foundation.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Fern
-fern-

You are reading that wrong. It does not say there are times torture is OK. It says not all pain and suffering is torture. For example handcuffs can be painful. Making a prisoner wear handcuffs for lawful purposes is not torture.

It sure as heck does. Follow the link to that book and read up.

Firslty if the GC defines torture, but then says 'well it's Ok if done under law' that's flat-out contadictory and clearly means that some acts defined as torture are OK under certain circumstances . No way around that.

Secondly, the GC contains a glaring loopholes (another discussion realy) about which acts of torture are OK if done under the law. Clearly they had no intention of OK'ing all acts of torture if done a country's law, but as it stands now it's a glaring loophole presumably because they couldn't get universal accpetance of what's OK and what's not so they just went with a very broad and vaque definition.

Fern.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I personally struggle with the morality and immorality of this incredibly 'gray' issue. One of the best posts I've read in a long time. Thanks Fern.

I can imagine you would fantasizing the issue is remotely gray. Torture is wrong, period, no ifs ands or buts.

Look...I can see both sides of the arguments and struggle with it...sorry if that bothers you.

How do you call struggling with the issue when Fern hands you a totally specious argument and you go for it as some profound insight when it is clearly junk. You struggle because you are torn between your conscience and your fear. There is no moral ambiguity here. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. If you torture you are as worthless as you feel the person you torture is. You torture evil for the good and that IS evil. Evil blows up buildings with innocent people in them because they deserve it. They are on the same side as evil and deserve to die. You torture, you are as deluded and psychotic as any other monster who justifies his actions on the basis of the evil of the other. You and the terrorist become one and the same being. Your ego fears. It doesn't want to be moral.

It is the same dilemma over and over. Free speech unless it offends us. Freedom, but not to burn the flag. It is endless, the exceptions we make because we have no real convictions or moral understanding. Always the coward leaves himself an out.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What the hell are you talking about, Fern. This is what you can't do:

"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."

Considering that, how do you go from:

"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

-snip-

Reading comprehnsion FTL.

"I go from"?

The bolded part is in the GC on Torture itself, why did you omit it from the part you quoted? You trunctated the quote of the Convention itself.

Fern

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
liberal fanatic alert, fricking liberal commie bastard...

hey, if he throws poo, i can too.

while waterboarding IS torture, i see the liberals jumping all over any and everything they can to try and discredit the R's because they fear some of the stupid shit Obama is doing.

Ok so what are you blathering about. You admit that the law was broken, but you don't care.

We get it, you're morally bankrupt.

 

[Moonbeam]

Funny how torture is hard to define but real easy to know when it happens to you. The ambiguity is always with the fuck doing the torture.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: Phokus

"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. "

Ahahaha, that doesn't mean 'there are times when torture is ok'

http://books.google.com/books?...ult&resnum=1#PPA181,M1

Read the part about how it would prohibit life imprisonment being declared torture and the 2nd paragraph about how it's more about punishment than torture.

You conservatives are so blatantly dishonest it's remarkable really.

I don't even know why you bring up tasers, consider I, like many others, think tasers shouldn't be used by cops.

Let me put it this way, Israel, who probably has more of an excuse to torture than we do, banned all forms of torture, even some of the things that even many liberals wouldn't consider torture (i.e. sleep deprivation/shaking/frog crouching). So basically the US is below even a perpetual war criminal state like Israel on this issue.

So it would be okay to cut someone's hand off for punishment, but not for information that would save lives? How is that somehow morally square? Now don't get me wrong, I'm not making the assertion that torture can save lives, as I'm of the opinion that there are better ways to get information out other than torture. However, that is where the debate should really be. It makes no moral sense to me to use torture if it doesn't work. On the other hand, it makes no moral sense to let innocent people die to prevent a person being harmed, physically or emotionally. The people that confuse me the most are those that are of the opinion that it would not be worth torturing 1 individual if it saved thousands of lives, especially since, despite legal definitions, ethically torture is not some quantized step, but a continuum, so definitions are pretty meaningless, as it would seem that the degree you are willing to slide along the continuum would be determined by the amount of good that could be achieved. Also, further complicating this issue, is that the degree of discomfort caused by a specific procedure for one individual will be different for another, so the whole spectrum is dynamic. So morally, are you going to assert that anything that causes any level of discomfort for the purpose of obtaining information is torture? Or are you just going to simplify things for your conscience and just accept what politicians you agree with tell you? This is largely simplified for me because it is generally agreed that the more harsh methods are typically less reliable methods. But other than that guideline, my morals direct me to first protect the majority innocent, then the individual innocent, then the guilty. Just an interesting moral exercise I once read. Assume a train car is going down a track, and there is a switch to select which path it will take. Down the path it is currently set are 20 individuals. Down the other is a single person. Do you flip the switch. Instead of that, imagine there is no switch, but there is a person that you could push into the path of the train that would definitely derail it. Would you push the person. In the end, the two are equivalent, but are they morally?

 

[Budmantom]

So torture has saved American lives and Obama and the Dem's are against torture.... what a surprise.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
liberal fanatic alert, fricking liberal commie bastard...

hey, if he throws poo, i can too.

while waterboarding IS torture, i see the liberals jumping all over any and everything they can to try and discredit the R's because they fear some of the stupid shit Obama is doing.

Ok so what are you blathering about. You admit that the law was broken, but you don't care.

We get it, you're morally bankrupt.

i have not given my stance on torture as used in the aforementioned articles... because i can not form a proper unbiased opinion due to biased sources reporting biased information...

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You torture, you are as deluded and psychotic as any other monster who justifies his actions on the basis of the evil of the other. You and the terrorist become one and the same being. Your ego fears. It doesn't want to be moral.

So how far do you take this, Moonbeam? Is it wrong to imprison (in essence, kidnap) the kidnapper?

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You torture, you are as deluded and psychotic as any other monster who justifies his actions on the basis of the evil of the other. You and the terrorist become one and the same being. Your ego fears. It doesn't want to be moral.

So how far do you take this, Moonbeam? Is it wrong to imprison (in essence, kidnap) the kidnapper?

what about solitary confinement? do you support that moonbeam?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Fern
-fern-

You are reading that wrong. It does not say there are times torture is OK. It says not all pain and suffering is torture. For example handcuffs can be painful. Making a prisoner wear handcuffs for lawful purposes is not torture.

It sure as heck does. Follow the link to that book and read up.

Firslty if the GC defines torture, but then says 'well it's Ok if done under law' that's flat-out contadictory and clearly means that some acts defined as torture are OK under certain circumstances . No way around that.

Secondly, the GC contains a glaring loopholes (another discussion realy) about which acts of torture are OK if done under the law. Clearly they had no intention of OK'ing all acts of torture if done a country's law, but as it stands now it's a glaring loophole presumably because they couldn't get universal accpetance of what's OK and what's not so they just went with a very broad and vaque definition.

Fern.

Just so I clear this all up, who gives a shit what the GC says about torture? What is referred to in the OP is the UN Convention Against Torture. If the GC said there were exceptional circumstances, the CAT eliminates those. All this means is that we can commit some actions that might not violate the GC stipulations against torture, but since they would still violate another treaty to which we are signatory, they are still illegal.

Glad to know our policies might only have egregiously violated one anti torture treaty instead of two.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What the hell are you talking about, Fern. This is what you can't do:

"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."

Considering that, how do you go from:

"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

-snip-

Reading comprehnsion FTL.

"I go from"?

The bolded part is in the GC on Torture itself, why did you omit it from the part you quoted? You trunctated the quote of the Convention itself.

Fern

Rather than me try to figure out how I didn't understand what you said, when, in my opinion, you don't understand what you said, just give me something concrete to reply to like what sort of incidental torture is OK, in your opinion.

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: Phokus
1) Republicans don't seem to believe in the rule of law or honoring treaties in this case. No surprise considering you guys are the scum of the earth.

When asked if he had but one gift to bequeath upon future generations, what it would be, Ray Bradbury was quoted as saying:

"The gift to see that not all Republicans are evil, that not all Democrats are evil, that not all Communists are evil, that not all Negroes are evil, that not all anything is evil. The ability to see the paradox in every person."

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Fern
-fern-

You are reading that wrong. It does not say there are times torture is OK. It says not all pain and suffering is torture. For example handcuffs can be painful. Making a prisoner wear handcuffs for lawful purposes is not torture.

It sure as heck does. Follow the link to that book and read up.

Firslty if the GC defines torture, but then says 'well it's Ok if done under law' that's flat-out contadictory and clearly means that some acts defined as torture are OK under certain circumstances . No way around that.

Secondly, the GC contains a glaring loopholes (another discussion realy) about which acts of torture are OK if done under the law. Clearly they had no intention of OK'ing all acts of torture if done a country's law, but as it stands now it's a glaring loophole presumably because they couldn't get universal accpetance of what's OK and what's not so they just went with a very broad and vaque definition.

Fern.

Just so I clear this all up, who gives a shit what the GC says about torture? What is referred to in the OP is the UN Convention Against Torture. If the GC said there were exceptional circumstances, the CAT eliminates those. All this means is that we can commit some actions that might not violate the GC stipulations against torture, but since they would still violate another treaty to which we are signatory, they are still illegal.

Glad to know our policies might only have egregiously violated one anti torture treaty instead of two.

There is nothing to clear up. The GC does not say what Fern hopes it does. Reading incomprehension FTL.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I think what Charles Krauthamer said was spot on.

Can't have pussies making military decisions. I've heard himself say that torture should be a last resort, but if you know the bad guy has info, and he knows where a nuke about to go off its, GET THE INFO. Don't be a pussy and let 1,000,000 people die just because you didn't have the balls to act. That makes the person who didn't torture a much worse individual than the guy who decided to waterboard, or w/e. It's a battle of "lesser evils"

It's pussies (ahem, liberal pussification of america) that won't fight the real fight and will end up losing their ass to people much worse then republicans.

We can't have idiots who use the word "pussies" the way you do making military decisions.

You are the sort of idiot who would call JFK a pussy because he said the military was 'nuts', and he regularly blocked their constant demands for military approaches to problems.

You do't understand why our founding fathers did not let the military or even the President decide when our nation goes to war, instead giving the decision to 'pussies' in Congress.

OH, and let's not forget pussy George Washington and his call to *avoid* foreign wars, or FDR the pussy who backed creating the UN to avoid war, or Eisenhower the pussy who warned about the military-industrial complex, we've already hit on JFK the pussy who blocked the military constantly.

No, thank goodness for a few presidents who weren't pussies, like the ones who saved our nation from being conquered by killing two million Vietnamese, or the ones who freely sponsored terrorist armies and death squads around Central America, terrorizing nations and blocking democracy for our corporations. Or fot other examples, a pussy who whined about what the good presidents asked him to do:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."

Oh, ya, that pussy was then the highed decorated Marine in history, Gen. Smedley Butler.

Thank goodness that the President and Vice President who advocate torture weren't pussies - as they went to great lengths to avoid serving in Viet Nam, but supported the war for others to go fight. Yes, Dick Cheney is just the sort of non-pussy we need to listen to on policy.

Just as Germany had people who said you can't let the pussies set policies on the Jews and Gays and others, or Japanese who said pussies can't set policies on the occupied Chinese.

Yes, you have fine allies - like WWII Germany and Japan and Bush - and fine enemies - like Washington, FDR, Eisenhower and JFK - for your 'pussy' policy.

Actually you had JFK on your side when he heard the name 'pussy policy', until he heard what an idiotic position it is, not what he assumed.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: JD50
And you're claiming that every Republican is the scum of the earth and salivating at the thought of torture when even your boogey man Reagan was vehemently opposed to it. You're a racist troll in fine company with winnar and butterbean.

Republicans are a race now?

Drama much?

:roll:

Maybe you shouldn't throw the word racist around so recklessly. :roll:

Maybe you should read that idiots other posts in other threads, I wasn't calling him a racist because he hates Republicans.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Rather than me try to figure out how I didn't understand what you said, when, in my opinion, you don't understand what you said, just give me something concrete to reply to like what sort of incidental torture is OK, in your opinion.

If you're when am I OK with harsh interrogation methods that would meet the GC definition of torture well I'm OK with waterboarding under the ticking bomb senario. I don't want the deaths on my concious.

Under that senario there is no time for "get to know them and gain their trust stuff'. From what I've read the 'gain their trust' stuff is a lengthy process.

BTW: There is no such thing as "incidental torture" as you phrase it.

It is "incidental to", seems a completely different meaning to me :

It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions

What that means is acts, otherwise defined as torture, are not "really torture" if arising from laws of a country (this nuance opens up an entirely different discussion but I won't go into that here). I take that to likely mean acts adjudicated as punishment for someone under the laws of a counrty.

As to what type of acts are permitted under the GC as a loophole, well that's an open question as best I can tell. There seems to be a very real level of dissatisfaction that this was left so vague. If the lawyers and experts writing about this problem claim there is no definition under the GC, I can't disagree with them.

If you wanna what things that qualify as torture, but are OK if sdone under laws, I'm OK with confinement (imprisionment), forced labor and physical force and/or tear gas and tasers to restrain prisioners when necessary (riots etc). I do not approve things such as cutting off hands. I was robbed in a Muslim country and refused to file a complaint when I learned that would be the punishment for the criminal.

Fern

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I think what Charles Krauthamer said was spot on.

Can't have pussies making military decisions. I've heard himself say that torture should be a last resort, but if you know the bad guy has info, and he knows where a nuke about to go off its, GET THE INFO. Don't be a pussy and let 1,000,000 people die just because you didn't have the balls to act. That makes the person who didn't torture a much worse individual than the guy who decided to waterboard, or w/e. It's a battle of "lesser evils"

It's pussies (ahem, liberal pussification of america) that won't fight the real fight and will end up losing their ass to people much worse then republicans.

We can't have idiots who use the word "pussies" the way you do making military decisions.

You are the sort of idiot who would call JFK a pussy because he said the military was 'nuts', and he regularly blocked their constant demands for military approaches to problems.

You do't understand why our founding fathers did not let the military or even the President decide when our nation goes to war, instead giving the decision to 'pussies' in Congress.

OH, and let's not forget pussy George Washington and his call to *avoid* foreign wars, or FDR the pussy who backed creating the UN to avoid war, or Eisenhower the pussy who warned about the military-industrial complex, we've already hit on JFK the pussy who blocked the military constantly.

No, thank goodness for a few presidents who weren't pussies, like the ones who saved our nation from being conquered by killing two million Vietnamese, or the ones who freely sponsored terrorist armies and death squads around Central America, terrorizing nations and blocking democracy for our corporations. Or fot other examples, a pussy who whined about what the good presidents asked him to do:

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."

Oh, ya, that pussy was then the highed decorated Marine in history, Gen. Smedley Butler.

Thank goodness that the President and Vice President who advocate torture weren't pussies - as they went to great lengths to avoid serving in Viet Nam, but supported the war for others to go fight. Yes, Dick Cheney is just the sort of non-pussy we need to listen to on policy.

Just as Germany had people who said you can't let the pussies set policies on the Jews and Gays and others, or Japanese who said pussies can't set policies on the occupied Chinese.

Yes, you have fine allies - like WWII Germany and Japan and Bush - and fine enemies - like Washington, FDR, Eisenhower and JFK - for your 'pussy' policy.

Actually you had JFK on your side when he heard the name 'pussy policy', until he heard what an idiotic position it is, not what he assumed.

Were you home schooled or something??? Every historical reference I have seen you post here has been twisted sevens ways to Sunday to fit your point of view...

I personally loved the one you did recently about the Brits showing restraint during the Battle Of Britain by not bombing German civilian populations. Had you done your homework, you would have known that Britain was not in position to mount such attacks, but when the tide changed, they firebombed the crap out several German cities, reducing them to rubble. Probably left that out of your post since it didn't fit your agenda though.

Your jacked up views here are no better...your JFK references are a total joke considering he stood his ground and didn't cave to the Soviets, even if it brought us to the brink of nuclear war.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I personally struggle with the morality and immorality of this incredibly 'gray' issue. One of the best posts I've read in a long time. Thanks Fern.

I can imagine you would fantasizing the issue is remotely gray. Torture is wrong, period, no ifs ands or buts.

Look...I can see both sides of the arguments and struggle with it...sorry if that bothers you.

How do you call struggling with the issue when Fern hands you a totally specious argument and you go for it as some profound insight when it is clearly junk. You struggle because you are torn between your conscience and your fear. There is no moral ambiguity here. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. If you torture you are as worthless as you feel the person you torture is. You torture evil for the good and that IS evil. Evil blows up buildings with innocent people in them because they deserve it. They are on the same side as evil and deserve to die. You torture, you are as deluded and psychotic as any other monster who justifies his actions on the basis of the evil of the other. You and the terrorist become one and the same being. Your ego fears. It doesn't want to be moral.

It is the same dilemma over and over. Free speech unless it offends us. Freedom, but not to burn the flag. It is endless, the exceptions we make because we have no real convictions or moral understanding. Always the coward leaves himself an out.

Again...I see it differently than you. If you equate being a pragmatist with being cowardly...then so be it. To me...this all boils down to the point where harsh interogation ends and 'torture' begins. To you...this is black and white regardless of circumstances. To me...it's gray as hell and highly dependent on circumstances. I believe it would be cowardly to allow innocent people to die, suffer, or be maimed for life so that we can take to the moral high ground on a very debatable issue (i.e. waterboarding).

Bottom line...Obama needs to release all the interrogation records to the light of day...we need to know right now if there's any validity to Cheney's arguments. To you that may not matter...but to me it matters greatly because I'm an admitted pragmatist (ergo 'coward') and I want to know for sure if innocent lives were saved or not...kind of funny that I would actually care about that...being the deluded psychotic monster that I am.