"We need to have a less-cramped view of what torture is and is not"

[The Emperor Fabulous]

So Spencer (and all those that support breaking these laws), lets look at the alternative:

Lets say that you were fighting in some war, and the enemy captured you. They found out that there was an immenent strike upon their headquarters from maybe something you had on yourself, and they needed to know certain information about it. These are dire circumstances. If they wanted to go around treaties they had signed, and tortured you to get that information, would they be justified?

[Seeker]

'Interesting' legal argument...haven't we seen it before somewhere?

You know, doesn't this make the Nuremburg trials a farce since, according to the German constitution, the fuhrer is not bound by the Geneva convention.

Hmm...there is a war crimes trial going on right now in Michigan I believe...why doesn't he cite the 'Bush defence', i.e. 'I'm right because I'm strong'?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
So Spencer (and all those that support breaking these laws), lets look at the alternative:

Lets say that you were fighting in some war, and the enemy captured you. They found out that there was an immenent strike upon their headquarters from maybe something you had on yourself, and they needed to know certain information about it. These are dire circumstances. If they wanted to go around treaties they had signed, and tortured you to get that information, would they be justified?

I dont support breaking the laws, I simply recognize that there are circumstances in which I would personally do so and where I would support such actions. I also recognize that someone might have the opinion that torture in any form is so repugnant that they would rather a city be destroyed than to use it and prevent that destruction. I dont understand that position since one problem, as I see it, is that virtually anything can be viewed as 'torture'.

You seem to be confusing the torture of soldiers (as defined by the Geneva Convention; which doesnt cover the captives in Guantanamo and some in Iraq) with torturing a terrorist who had planted a nuclear device in a city (in the hope of getting critical info).

Under the circumstances you have set forth (i.e. soldiers in a war) it isnt justified. On the other hand, it would happen, and IMO it would be foolish of them to not use some form of coercion (its a matter of degree).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Isn't the President technically not hampered by the Geneva convention, since as a treaty it is subordinate to the Constitution (specifically, his powers as Supreme Commander)?

Under that logic, the Prez wouldn't be hindered by acts of Congress or the states. Treaties which are ratified by the Senate are the law of the land, and the President is required to obey them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
It's interesting, Sky, cause in fighting your enemy...your becoming your enemy

When did I condone anything? I was asking about a legal technicality... which has far-reaching implications. Wouldn't things like NATO requiring us to declare war also be unconstitutional for a similar reason?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
"Supreme Commander"?

Commander in Chief, Supreme Commander, you knew EXACTLY what I meant.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Seeker
'Interesting' legal argument...haven't we seen it before somewhere?

You know, doesn't this make the Nuremburg trials a farce since, according to the German constitution, the fuhrer is not bound by the Geneva convention.

He wasn't prosecuted under German law.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I want to reiterate what was said today by Sen. Joe Biden:

"There's a reason why we (Congress) sign these treaties: to protect my son in the military. That's why we sign these treaties, so that when an American is captured, they are not tortured. That is the reason; in case anyone forgets this, that is the reason."

"One old soldier" should be able to understand this.

I'd like to ask Sen Bidens son these questions

Are you willing to kill to protect the people of your country?

Are you willing to die to protect the people of your country?

Would you be willing to suffer torture or to torture others in order to protect the people of your country?

Its a dirty business. Its not for the faint hearted.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Commander in Chief, Supreme Commander, you knew EXACTLY what I meant.

And you are still wrong!

The president is electred for only 4 years, to do the business of the people, and to follow his laws. A sitting president was impeached for lying to a grand jury investigation..and here you go saying he gets to ignore all treaties in his post as commander in Chief? Sorry, but that is insane. NO, the president is not above any treaties as commander in chief.

[Kuciwalker]

And you read me wrong AGAIN. Notice this little symol, called a question mark? Notice how, when it follows things and is not being blatantly sarcastic like now, it means that someone is asking a question?

[Pekka]

The way I see it, torture is not acceptable. Sleep deprivation does count as torture if it goes long enough. It has been mention to be a torture method on many different references before this thread. It definitely IS torture method along with denying medical treatment when in need, rationing food too low or denying food for longer periods of time etc. These are ALL torture methods. Don't tihnk about 'well beating in the head with a butt of the gun' is only form of slight torture and electric shocks. Sleep deprvation, food rationing and denial of medical treatment are MENTAL torture. It is designed to break the target mentally. Like chinese water drops. It's very simple. And there is no question if it's torture or not, it is.

Of course this is not to be mixed up with let's say some military police says 'you're not getting food today'.. or 'wake up, it's time for another interrogation'. It's not torture necessarily. When it gets methodical and systematical, then it's torture. There is no if's and but's. If you go to that place, you are justifying the most common methods of torture that are very well known. LIke said, if it's not methodical, it's not torture. **** happens, hey if you don't get food like clockwork, it doesnt' count as torture.

The whole point of following the rules is to protect your own ass. That's the whole point, it mostly protects you and me, so we would have some hopes for fair treatment if captured. It might not come, but if we don't respect the rules, then no one will for sure. We're supposed to represent the free world and western civilized culture here. There is no place for torture in it.

What you are talking about with the example of nuke and one terrorist knowing where it is, preventing death, this is very extreme example. When you play it like that, remember that then you can expand it to 'well some of these guys might know' and you have all these guys which in reality you don't know what they know and if they know or if there even is a nuke anywhere. You go torturing the most prominent candidates, all you got is crap in your hands and that's it!

Have or have we not concluded, that information from torture targets is HIGHLY unreliable? They will lie. ****, after braking them mentally they might lie and believe it's true.. passing all the lie detector tests after that. Then go and figure what the truth is. Impossible.

Also torturing is against human rights. POW or no POW, torturing is against human rights, and those rights are handed to every human being. YOu can't go torturing people it's just that simple. IF you find torturing the only working method, then we are proving ourselves that this democracy of ours is not working and we don't deserve our freedom. We have degorated ourselves in the level of Saddam Hussein and other mother****ers who torture. Have you not forgotten about the pretext to the wars anyway, Saddam torturing his own and stuff.. that flies right out of the window if we feel that yeah well we torture just a little bit and the right people. There is no middle or in between.

FUrthermore, if the case should arise, the nuke example, I'm sure that the patriot the interrogator is would torture the prisoner anyway. The difference is, we as a society do not have to condone that kind of behaviour. We must sentence that torturer into jail for what he did regardless of if he got results. We can't be above the law. The interrogator might torture anyway, and that happens anyway, but we must punish these people for it, NOT justify it, or you can some day find yourself in a dark place and world of hurt even if innocent.

[GePap]

Ahem, I was not responding to your NATO question at all. So first, keep your arguements straight.

but since you mention that post,

Wouldn't things like NATO requiring us to declare war also be unconstitutional for a similar reason?

Read the act itself- we are NOT technically mandated to declare war-it is a collective security arrangement, but the reason to declare war on an enemy if they attack a NATO member is not becuase we are by law mandated to do so, but the diplomatic consequences of not doing it, which would be vast.

Maybe you ginore the fact that all treaties have an army of lawyers look them over them, especially if they have to do with war and peace. NATO has the choice to invoke that article or not.

[Sava]

this subject sickens me and makes me hate Bush* and company even more

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo

It seems like a reasonable conclusion based on the lease agreement.

Still waiting for the justification, Dino.

For what?

[Ramo]

What about the lease agreement specifically says that noncitizens have no Constitutional protections in Gitmo?