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

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And how then can you wonder how those MPs came to do what they did?

I dont wonder that at all. It's likely they were told to do those things, probably in a manner that allowed the persons giving the order (i.e. 'civilian contactors') to deny responsibility. Clearly, the direct superiors of the MP's (whose heads are now on the chopping blocks) were not doing their duty in properly supervising the men under their command. In any case, MP's should never have been involved in acts this overt.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What signals, or orders, did they receive?

I'm not sure what you're refering to. Perhaps my answer to the previous post covers it.

Why did the administration decide that they should piss away the little credit that your nation still possesses for the sake of humiliating and perhaps torturing people who they had to kick because there was no reason to hold them in the first place (quite unlike a 'known' terrorist with isotope on his clothes found red handed in the US).

Is there actually a question here? It doesnt seem so.

Why does Canada allow punishing prisoners with solitary confinement? Perhaps you dont figure that's torture eh?

'your nation'

Shhhh, not so loud. I havent taken complete control yet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Treaties also rank higher than run-of-the-mill laws.

If we are talking in the US, then no. The Supreme Court has ruled that treaties are equivalent to laws (both being the 'supreme laws of the land'), and a later law can nullify a treaty (and vice-versa).

[debeest]

Originally posted by SpencerH
So is it likely that Iraqi's have died while being tortured (some may use the euphamism of 'during questioning", I dont bother) ?

Probably yes.

Is that the same as,

"torturing to death innocent civilian citizens of a country which we have invaded despite the complete lack of evidence that anyone in the country posed any significant threat to us? "

No.

You asked me to "Please provide ANY credible evidence that the US military have tortured anyone to death." I provided clear documentation, which you couldn't dispute. So, like the Shrub administration, now that you've been proven wrong, you're changing the terms of the discussion. Semantic quibbling! Nice, Spence.

For the record, it's well established that a substantial majority of the Abu Ghraib prisoners are completely innocent of any involvement in attacks on the US occupiers. Were you trying to dispute the "innocent civilians" part of my statement? If not, exactly what part do you want to try to dispute?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by debeest


You asked me to "Please provide ANY credible evidence that the US military have tortured anyone to death." I provided clear documentation, which you couldn't dispute. So, like the Shrub administration, now that you've been proven wrong, you're changing the terms of the discussion. Semantic quibbling! Nice, Spence.

Yes, you answered my question and I admitted that there have been deaths and that it's likely that some were an after-effect of torture. That in no way supports your assertion that the USA 'tortured to death innocent civilians'

For the record, it's well established that a substantial majority of the Abu Ghraib prisoners are completely innocent of any involvement in attacks on the US occupiers. Were you trying to dispute the "innocent civilians" part of my statement? If not, exactly what part do you want to try to dispute?

Well established by who? The red cross? Just how would they know that? Psychic powers perhaps.

[debeest]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Yes, you answered my question and I admitted that there have been deaths and that it's likely that some were an after-effect of torture. That in no way supports your assertion that the USA 'tortured to death innocent civilians'

Okay, so you're acknowledging the "tortured to death" part. Are you then trying to claim that they were not innocent civilians?

[notyoueither]

'Tortured to death' anyone is not enough?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by SpencerH


I dont wonder that at all. It's likely they were told to do those things, probably in a manner that allowed the persons giving the order (i.e. 'civilian contactors') to deny responsibility. Clearly, the direct superiors of the MP's (whose heads are now on the chopping blocks) were not doing their duty in properly supervising the men under their command. In any case, MP's should never have been involved in acts this overt.

I agree. It never should have happened. However, you have your administration not only defending it, but promoting their right to do it.

Sorry, Spence, I am probably among the last furinners that could ever be accused of being anti-US, but I have to get off this bus. I do not like the destination.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by debeest


Okay, so you're acknowledging the "tortured to death" part. Are you then trying to claim that they were not innocent civilians?

From our comfy chairs 4000 miles away, we have no way to know who is innocent and who is not. Aside from the actions of sadists, we have no reason to torture innocent people but we do have reasons to obtain info from terrorists. Is it possible that one of those who has died as a result of torture was innocent? Sure its possible, but unless the troops on the ground were complete morons, I think its highly unlikely.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by notyoueither
'Tortured to death' anyone is not enough?

Those are debeests words, and I disagree with the inference.

Tortured to death i.e. purposefully tortured until the subject was dead

died as a result of torture i.e. someone who dies accidentally as a result of torture

Once you step over the line and say that torture is OK under some circumstance (and to the best of my knowledge every western country does so) then all we can ask is that the intent is to preserve life, that the importance and timeliness of the information warrants the methods used, and that their is accountability for the actions taken.

[Dinner]

Bush is immoral and he shames our country with such actions.

[SpencerH]

What actions? All that is happening is that a bunch of lawyers are dotting the i's and crossing the t's on what tortures are considered legal and what tortures are considered illegal. Those rules have been in place for a long time, its just that it never come into the public spotlight.

[debeest]

I kind of like bumping this thread just so that people can get a good look at the things SpencerH says. This is the mindset that's currently in charge of our government. Think about it, people.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All that is happening is that a bunch of lawyers are dotting the i's and crossing the t's on what tortures are considered legal and what tortures are considered illegal.

That's true. I don't consider asking for the opinion to be horrible. Asking for the line you can go up to is a valid thing to ask for.

[Atahualpa]

I think Boshko's Blog posting hits the nail on the head.

I was about to post a thread on worlds new democratic despots. Just look at people like Putin (who eliminates his opponents one by one) and Berlusconi (trying to stand above the law) in Europe. And Bush in the US.
Its probably overrated now and people will probably think I am a fool for making up situations, but to me there is a direction visible. Of course it probably wont come to worst, since after all there ARE elections and people will see whats going on. But things can get bad, when still we think these peoples are what will do best to our countries.


And for that ridiculous story Spencer made up: Do you HONESTLY think that you can get information out of a guy whose nuclear bomb is going to explode in 2 hours? Dont you think, people blowing themselves up for their cause, give a rat's ass about being tortured??? They will heroically stand through the 2 hours and then BOOOM. Those people are martyrians! Torturing them is what they expect. Seriously, if it is going to get close you are lost, if you caught someone or not.

Here is a scenario for you: Imagine the U.S. would be invaded by a foreign power. They occupied all of the land and in that process probably killed your family. You joined an underground movement and have opted to plant a bomb near their headquarters where their beloved leader is currently residing. They caught you somewhere else and now torture you to get the location. Would you tell them where it is?