What Is "Torture"?

[2aguy]

I keep thinking of the Dirty Harry movie where there was a guy whom Dirty Harry knew had kidnapped a girl, and this guy knew where she was. In such a case, I would be all for torture. Torture his arse!

For gods' sakes. Clint Eastwood movies as reality, should have known. Next you'll be wanting to torture empty chairs to get them to talk.[/QUOTE]

You know...this actually happened in Germany...I heard the story from Dennis Prager...he brought it up the first time we went around and around on waterboarding back in the 2004....

There was a boy who was buried alive by a pedophile in a German city...I don't think it was Berlin, but it was another major city over there...they had the monster in custody, but he refused to say where the boy was buried alive. The police chief went into the interrogation room and told the monster if he didn't talk, he was going to beat the living shit out of the monster....the guy then gave up the location...it was too late... the poor kid was already dead...

And because he simply threatened to use violence...the police chief had to resign....

 

[cnm]

What you people don't understand is the nature of this enemy....and what the Geneva Conventions used to be designed for....

Are you saying this is wrong?

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.[1]

Unlawful combatant

Are you further saying US domestic law permits 'enhanced interrogation'? Because if not, it is you that does not understand the purpose of the Conventions - which of course is what you have demonstrated.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I'm sure sometimes, if you KNOW that a person knows information, then it could be a useful tactic.

I keep thinking of the Dirty Harry movie where there was a guy whom Dirty Harry knew had kidnapped a girl, and this guy knew where she was. In such a case, I would be all for torture. Torture his arse!

For gods' sakes. Clint Eastwood movies as reality, should have known. Next you'll be wanting to torture empty chairs to get them to talk.

Well, I was just setting up a scenario. You think stuff like that doesn't happen in real life? Well, it does. If some crazy guy had YOUR daughter, I'll bet you would want to the police to torture him, wouldn't you?

 

[2aguy]

Here is that story from Germany...

The Daschner case and the rehabilitation of torture in Germany - World Socialist Web Site

 

[ChrisL]

I keep thinking of the Dirty Harry movie where there was a guy whom Dirty Harry knew had kidnapped a girl, and this guy knew where she was. In such a case, I would be all for torture. Torture his arse!

For gods' sakes. Clint Eastwood movies as reality, should have known. Next you'll be wanting to torture empty chairs to get them to talk.

You know...this actually happened in Germany...I heard the story from Dennis Prager...he brought it up the first time we went around and around on waterboarding back in the 2004....

There was a boy who was buried alive by a pedophile in a German city...I don't think it was Berlin, but it was another major city over there...they had the monster in custody, but he refused to say where the boy was buried alive. The police chief went into the interrogation room and told the monster if he didn't talk, he was going to beat the living shit out of the monster....the guy then gave up the location...it was too late... the poor kid was already dead...

And because he simply threatened to use violence...the police chief had to resign....[/QUOTE]

Well, I guess some people would care more about saving the little boy than anything else. Does that make them bad?

 

[cnm]

But I accept that people who have reached a position without regard to the law cannot be argued from that position by arguing law.

I hear Somalia is nice.

 

[2aguy]

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.[1]

Unlawful combatant

Are you further saying US domestic law permits 'enhanced interrogation'? Because if not, it is you that does not understand the purpose of the Conventions - which of course is what you have demonstrated.

Yes, you overlooked the "may be" part of the definition....that leaves room for dealing with the unlawful combatant the way we did....to save lives....had they been uniformed soldiers of an actual national army, or an actual civilian, they could not have been water boarded...they would have been protected by the Geneva Conventions...if they are U.S. citizens, then again, they can't be waterboarded...

guys going around in a war zone, committing rape, torture and murder, have opened themselves up to enhanced interrogation if they are captured....

 

[cnm]

The police chief went into the interrogation room and told the monster if he didn't talk, he was going to beat the living shit out of the monster....the guy then gave up the location...it was too late... the poor kid was already dead...

Boy you talk some rubbish.

The Daschner case and the rehabilitation of torture in Germany

In October 2002, Daschner had threatened to inflict severe pain on Magnus Gaefgen, the kidnapper of 11-year old banker’s son Jakob von Metzler, if Gaefgen did not reveal where he had hidden the child. Gaefgen promptly admitted that the boy was already dead. Gaefgen was later sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.

The Daschner case and the rehabilitation of torture in Germany - World Socialist Web Site

 

[ChrisL]

But I accept that people who have reached a position without regard to the law cannot be argued from that position by arguing law.

I hear Somalia is nice.

IOW, you don't know what else to say. What country are you from again?

 

[ChrisL]

But I accept that people who have reached a position without regard to the law cannot be argued from that position by arguing law.

I hear Somalia is nice.

What if some guy had kidnapped your daughter and was raping and torturing her? The police caught the guy, but he won't say where he's keeping her. He refuses to speak at all. Now what?

 

[cnm]

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.[1]

Unlawful combatant

Are you further saying US domestic law permits 'enhanced interrogation'? Because if not, it is you that does not understand the purpose of the Conventions - which of course is what you have demonstrated.

that leaves room for dealing with the unlawful combatant the way we did

Invincible ignorance is invincible.

 

[cnm]

IOW, you don't know what else to say. What country are you from again?

At a certain point one has to accept that invincible ignorance is invincible. No sweat.

Invincible ignorance fallacy

Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections.

 

[2aguy]

Violations and punishment[edit]
During conflict, punishment for violating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisal.

Combatants who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded to them as prisoners of war, but only after facing a "competent tribunal."[34] At that point, they become unlawful combatants, but must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial," because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5.

Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the "power" which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war, and until they are found to be an "unlawful combatant." Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or a military tribunal for their acts. In practice, they have often have been subjected to torture and execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope.[citation needed]

Spies may only be punished following a trial; if captured after rejoining their own army, they must be treated as prisoners of war.[35] Suspected terrorists who are captured during an armed conflict, without having participated in the hostilities, may be detained only in accordance with the GC IV, and are entitled to a regular trial.[36] Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason.

See, CNM...I researched your link.....and we didn't torture...we used harsh interrogation techniques against unlawful enemy combatants....waterboarding is a humane way to get the worst monsters to give up vital information to save innocent civilian lives......

 

[ChrisL]

An unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and may be detained or prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.[1]

Unlawful combatant

Are you further saying US domestic law permits 'enhanced interrogation'? Because if not, it is you that does not understand the purpose of the Conventions - which of course is what you have demonstrated.

that leaves room for dealing with the unlawful combatant the way we did

Invincible ignorance is invincible.

That's why it happened OFF of US soil at Gitmo. Why do you think they opened that place to begin with?

 

[ChrisL]

IOW, you don't know what else to say. What country are you from again?

At a certain point one has to accept that invincible ignorance is invincible. No sweat.

Invincible ignorance fallacy

Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections.

Yes, considering that you cannot address any questions posed to you, you must be quite an ignoramASS.

 

[ChrisL]

IOW, you don't know what else to say. What country are you from again?

At a certain point one has to accept that invincible ignorance is invincible. No sweat.

Invincible ignorance fallacy

Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections.

What country did you say you were from again? Oh, that's right, you didn't. Lol.

I would like to know so that I can dig up some dirt and then lecture you about it.

 

[2aguy]

Remember, Washington hanged spies, Roosevelt executed German spies....so these guys are lucky, the 3 of them were just waterboarded....and after he started cooperating and telling us every last detail about the operations of al queda, ksm would be rewarded with his favorite meal...Kentucky Fried Chicken....

 

[cnm]

See, CNM...I researched your link.....

And then ignored what it had to say.

 

[2aguy]

.....

 

[ChrisL]

See, CNM...I researched your link.....

And then ignored what it had to say.

How about this scenario? You know that a guy planted a bomb in a building in New York City, and it has the potential to kill THOUSANDS of people, but he won't tell you where the bomb is? What do you do? Do you adhere to your political correctness? Or do you try to save lives?

Like I said, I don't agree with torture in general because it sets a bad precedence and people will lie under that kind of stress, but in certain situations I can definitely understand how it could be useful.