Torture - Does anyone support it?? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-13-2005, 06:23 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I for one find it hard to believe that forcing prisoners to denounce their belief system will save millions of people.
I agree wholeheartedly.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 08:14 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Re: Torture - Does anyone support it??

Quote:
Originally posted by tackleberry
With all the reports/stories of how the White House tried to ease sanctions on Torture techniques, I wanted to ask if anyone on this forum actually supports torture as a means of getting information to help prevent a terrorist attack or to capture a well-known terrorist.

And if the White House did ease sanctions (someone in there does support torture, whether it be Gonzalez or Rumsfeld), did they actually think they could get away with this without anyone knowing? I mean come on...

So, whether your right or left, do you support this? And my god, why?
Based on what I have read I support the White House on this. This does not mean I support the abuses, and I do not think the White House does either. I have yet to see a memo saying that they did.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 08:15 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



i'm not saying much of anything, other than that we need to ask ourselves if the Geneva Convention is applicable to the 21st century.

The geneva convention was designed when the poeple we were at war with wore uniforms and fought under the banner of a unified country.

that is not what we face today.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-13-2005, 11:41 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 05:20 AM
I only support torture for those who disagree with me. You know who you are....
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 12:53 AM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Shoot, not if I can get the bolt cutters and barbed wire out first.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 06:13 AM   #36
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark

Again, part a references torture, which can be broadly interptreted. Thus the debate. Also terms like outrages, humiliating, and cruel treatment can be broadly interpreted
This strikes me as overly pedantic, to be honest. The question was where we draw the line. I'm just pointing out that the line has already been drawn. Call it what you will.

If you want to make things so bad for a prisoner that they're willing to talk just to make it stop, that is cruelty. If you intend to humiliate them to get them to talk, that is humiliation. I don't really see where these fine lines are.
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 06:24 AM   #37
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


The geneva convention was designed when the poeple we were at war with wore uniforms and fought under the banner of a unified country.

that is not what we face today.
I agree, but what I don't understand is what difference it really makes. Granted, it might make a difference in a narrow legal sense - I stress "might" - but how that changes the moral calculus is difficult for me to understand. Do you think intelligence concerns weren't a factor when the Geneva Conventions were adopted? Do you think that you could automatically trust your enemies to follow the same guidelines just because they're a uniformed army? Are terrorists any more able to fight against you as prisoners than conventional soldiers?
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 06:47 AM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by strannix


I agree, but what I don't understand is what difference it really makes. Granted, it might make a difference in a narrow legal sense - I stress "might" - but how that changes the moral calculus is difficult for me to understand. Do you think intelligence concerns weren't a factor when the Geneva Conventions were adopted? Do you think that you could automatically trust your enemies to follow the same guidelines just because they're a uniformed army? Are terrorists any more able to fight against you as prisoners than conventional soldiers?
I am open to the changes I read in the Gonzalvez memo. I do not find them to be outside my moral calculus. I do not think that the Geneva Conventions were designed to apply to warfare with an organization verses a country.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 08:17 AM   #39
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 04:20 AM
I agree with Verte, I think Gonzales is totally wrong and it is out of my moral acceptablilty. Especially where torture must equal death or organ failure.
Uniforms have nothing to do with it. That is an outmoded way of conflict. In almost all conflicts occurring at this time one side or the other doesn't wear uniforms.
George Washington's army did not all wear them. Nor did the colonial troops in the French and Indian war.

(PS - My fourth grade teacher was my favorite. She was strict as hell and gave me my love of history, course growing up near Yorktown & Williamsburg helped bring it all to life.)
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 08:25 AM   #40
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,464
Local Time: 04:20 AM
should we grant the same dignity and respect to the captured barbarians who kill, maim, decapitate and, yes, torture innocent men, women and children as we do to soldiers of a soverign nation?

probably... but i won't shed a tear if we don't.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 08:31 AM   #41
The Fly
 
ahmedadam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: A place that must to be belived to be seen
Posts: 58
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Only I support it for consentuing adults.
__________________
ahmedadam is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 08:35 AM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
I agree with Verte, I think Gonzales is totally wrong and it is out of my moral acceptablilty. Especially where torture must equal death or organ failure.
Uniforms have nothing to do with it. That is an outmoded way of conflict. In almost all conflicts occurring at this time one side or the other doesn't wear uniforms.
George Washington's army did not all wear them. Nor did the colonial troops in the French and Indian war.

(PS - My fourth grade teacher was my favorite. She was strict as hell and gave me my love of history, course growing up near Yorktown & Williamsburg helped bring it all to life.)
The part about GW not having uniforms, is not quite accurate.....

And to my knowledge, the Geneva conventions were not around then, so it really does not apply.

Also, GW was fighting against a soverign nation, not a terrorist organization.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 10:32 AM   #43
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,464
Local Time: 04:20 AM
how about the fact that our enemy does not adhere to geneva? how come we don't have discussions about that?
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 11:11 AM   #44
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 340
Local Time: 03:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
how about the fact that our enemy does not adhere to geneva? how come we don't have discussions about that?
The Third Geneva Convention was adopted in 1929. Was it really reasonable to expect that the Nazis were treating our guys well during World War II?
__________________
strannix is offline  
Old 01-14-2005, 01:10 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by strannix
Was it really reasonable to expect that the Nazis were treating our guys well during World War II?
Yes. And for the most part, they did.

And, during WWII, those who tried fighting out of uniform were executed.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com