Torture Question

[notsfc]

I would say the greatest good theory.
To make an omelette you have to brake a few eggs.
It is better that many inocent people go to prison than one guilty one go free!!

perhaps you should move to china.

[SDK]

Fuck yea I would like to be the tallest one around for once.

[mnstang]

I would say the greatest good theory.
To make an omelette you have to brake a few eggs.
It is better that many inocent people go to prison than one guilty one go free!!

i think it should be the other way around. do you want to go to prison for nothing?????
i am for torture if it is because terrorists are witholding important information. no pitty for terrorist scumbags.

[68GTO]

Sure, I'll weigh in:

When you have previous prisoners of war stating they are against modifying the Geneva convention, I have this funny feeling they may have a better idea about it than someone sitting on capital hill.

It has absolutely nothing to do with partisanship which people seem to be jumping up and down to do to the issue. Changing the Geneva convention is a bad idea period. If we decide we can change it now, what's stopping China from doing it in 5 years when we get into a conflict over Hong Kong? Plenty of evil is born of good intentions.

Included herein is article three of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm)

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
b) Taking of hostages;
c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (What does this mean? Where is it defined? How can it be uniformly applied? Without definition, it can’t)
d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Outrages against personal dignity? Huh? Let’s look at the application of the Geneva Convention by our enemies in conflict in Korea, shall we? Were the officers and sailors of the USS Pueblo treated in accordance by the North Koreans? What about the Chinese? What about the Iranians? What about the Iraqi regime?

The USS PUEBLO was a U. S. Navy vessel sent on an intelligence mission off the coast of North Korea. On January 23, 1968, the USS PUEBLO was attacked by North Korean naval vessels and MiG jets. One man was killed and several were wounded. The Eighty-two surviving crew members were captured and held prisoner for 11 months. The pages on this site tell the story of the Pueblo Incident and present the USS PUEBLO Veteran's Association. (http://www.usspueblo.org/) Read this site and the stories about captivity and torture THEN look at the proposed legislation to see what is and what is not there. This is NOT about changing the Geneva convention. This is about DEFINING what the ambiguous statements contained therein mean.

[MadMatt]

If I was addicted to crack and meth and promised some for the admistration of horrofying torture Id go crazy on some lululuulus with a pair of plyers and a blow torch

[CCr]

I'm typically the tallest one around

[notsfc]

Included herein is article three of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm)

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
b) Taking of hostages;
c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (What does this mean? Where is it defined? How can it be uniformly applied? Without definition, it can’t)
d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

Outrages against personal dignity? Huh? Let’s look at the application of the Geneva Convention by our enemies in conflict in Korea, shall we? Were the officers and sailors of the USS Pueblo treated in accordance by the North Koreans? What about the Chinese? What about the Iranians? What about the Iraqi regime?

The USS PUEBLO was a U. S. Navy vessel sent on an intelligence mission off the coast of North Korea. On January 23, 1968, the USS PUEBLO was attacked by North Korean naval vessels and MiG jets. One man was killed and several were wounded. The Eighty-two surviving crew members were captured and held prisoner for 11 months. The pages on this site tell the story of the Pueblo Incident and present the USS PUEBLO Veteran's Association. (http://www.usspueblo.org/) Read this site and the stories about captivity and torture THEN look at the proposed legislation to see what is and what is not there. This is NOT about changing the Geneva convention. This is about DEFINING what the ambiguous statements contained therein mean.

And yet in all of the above they didn't consider our troops prisoners of war and said the Geneva conventions didn't apply. Right or wrong, "defining" the Geneva conventions would not have changed the outcomes of any of the above. You make it sound like you're trying to claim it would have.

Everything you posted completely avoids the original point. If we decide now we can redefine the Geneva conventions, there's nothing stopping any other country from doing the same and it defeats the entire purpose of having it. If we're going to change it, we might as well just throw it out entirely...

[68GTO]

And yet in all of the above they didn't consider our troops prisoners of war and said the Geneva conventions didn't apply. Right or wrong, "defining" the Geneva conventions would not have changed the outcomes of any of the above. You make it sound like you're trying to claim it would have.

Everything you posted completely avoids the original point. If we decide now we can redefine the Geneva conventions, there's nothing stopping any other country from doing the same and it defeats the entire purpose of having it. If we're going to change it, we might as well just throw it out entirely...

Please define for me what Article 3, Section 1, point C means. What does this mean? Where is it defined? How can it be uniformly applied? Without definition, it can’t. I have read the ENTIRE Geneva Convention within the past week. There are great sections (well defined) and there are some completely AMBIGUOUS sections (undefined terms). The USA is seeking to create definition around those areas. That is all....

[notsfc]

Please define for me what Article 3, Section 1, point C means. What does this mean? Where is it defined? How can it be uniformly applied? Without definition, it can’t. I have read the ENTIRE Geneva Convention within the past week. There are great sections (well defined) and there are some completely AMBIGUOUS sections (undefined terms). The USA is seeking to create definition around those areas. That is all....

And with whose approval are they making these changes? The nation states who originally were part of it's drafting? Last I checked they're trying to "define" those sections by themselves with no input from any third parties. Again, they may as well just throw it out altogether. Why would any other country bother complying with laws the US drafted without their input? "definitions" or not, if I were another nation I'd tell the US to take a walk.

[loads]

AND
It was written for an army from one country attacking another country during wartime.
I have read in the past where spies were not given protection of the geneva because their country wouldn't acknowledge their being there on gov't business. Thus, the poor spy can be tortured to no end.

A question I have then is: Do the countries these terrorists come from acknowledge that they were representing their country? I think not!

Geneva convention doesn't apply - torture away! It can't be both ways...

[notsfc]

AND
It was written for an army from one country attacking another country during wartime.
I have read in the past where spies were not given protection of the geneva because their country wouldn't acknowledge their being there on gov't business. Thus, the poor spy can be tortured to no end.

A question I have then is: Do the countries these terrorists come from acknowledge that they were representing their country? I think not!

Geneva convention doesn't apply - torture away! It can't be both ways...

But then you're defeating the whole purpose of this country. We *shoudl be* above torture; a moral compass. Just because they do it doesn't mean it's OK for us to do it. If we justify our actions because others are doing the same, how are we any better than they are?

[loads]

But then you're defeating the whole purpose of this country. We *shoudl be* above torture; a moral compass. Just because they do it doesn't mean it's OK for us to do it. If we justify our actions because others are doing the same, how are we any better than they are?

In theory I agree with you. However, it's a wild and nasty world out there.
WHen you have an enemy that wants to kill themselves to get a few innocent civs so they can go to heaven, that's the pure definition of evil in my eyes. We can't tie ourselves up with morality when our enemy has none.

I'm not condoning it - well I guess I am. In the right scenario it could save millions. If they were able to smuggle a nuke into our country wouldn't you want our guys to do everything they could to prevent it from going off?

Extreme example, I know...

[LES]

I say we put them in a room and force them to read all LTD'S post over and over and over. Holy shit !

[loads]

I say we put them in a room and force them to read all LTD'S post over and over and over. Holy shit !

With the size of his text, they can see it on the monitor from their homeland!

[LES]

With the size of his text, they can see it on the monitor from their homeland!