 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Torture bill |
New poll |  |  |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
emcee Red Super Koopa                  Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| I can't understand how the Administration could fight to make anyone exempt from antitorture laws.
First of all, isn't torture already illegal under the Geneva Convention and international law? If the Administration really wants intelligence officers to be allowed to use torture, what's the big deal with side-stepping one more law? Secondly, why is this debate even happening? Who in their right mind would condone torture under any circumstances? Any thoughts? (edited by emcee on 12-10-05 06:01 PM) |
|||
Silvershield   580    Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6306 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeEven as the generally moral person that I'd consider myself to be, I cannot bring myself to entirely reject the notion of torture. Surely it is nothing short of inhumane when used as a method of punishment, but can you not imagine a circumstance where it would somehow be justified? It is appalling to be forced to think that way, but we must all consider, for example, a case where a person holds information that can save the lives of many. Is that person's well-being - not even his life, mind you, just his safety from torture - not justifiably sacrificed? In a way I find myself playing Devil's advocate here, but not without thoughtfully considering all options myself. |
|||
Gavin Cheep-cheep Vandalism is not tolerated Since: 11-17-05 From: IL, USA Last post: 6371 days Last view: 6314 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by emceeEven as the generally moral person that I'd consider myself to be, I cannot bring myself to entirely reject the notion of torture. Surely it is nothing short of inhumane when used as a method of punishment, but can you not imagine a circumstance where it would somehow be justified? It is appalling to be forced to think that way, but we must all consider, for example, a case where a person holds information that can save the lives of many. Is that person's well-being - not even his life, mind you, just his safety from torture - not justifiably sacrificed? Torture is Torture. Torture == Torture. Torture + Torture + Torture = Torture There is no justification, and it is supposed to be the very thing that sets us apart. It is a ridiculous hypocrisy and I agree with Silvershield.. it's just disgusting that they fight such legistlation. If we allow torture in some circumstances we compromise our moral integrity and have no authority whatsoever to condescend to other entities about such issues. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| I'm with Gavin. Allowing torture is the ultimate slippery slope to the police state. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by emceeEven as the generally moral person that I'd consider myself to be, I cannot bring myself to entirely reject the notion of torture. Surely it is nothing short of inhumane when used as a method of punishment, but can you not imagine a circumstance where it would somehow be justified? It is appalling to be forced to think that way, but we must all consider, for example, a case where a person holds information that can save the lives of many. Is that person's well-being - not even his life, mind you, just his safety from torture - not justifiably sacrificed? There's really two problems with this argument. First of all, generally, torture doesn't work. If standard interrogation techniques fail, the detainee will usually lie to provide, atleast temperary, relief from torture. Besides being cruel and inhumane, torture is normally counter-productive, producing false intelligence. Secondly, I don't think opposition to this bill is related to that rare, hypothetical situation, where information is needed to save many lives, all other options have been exausted and interrogators know torture will work. Simply because, once the interrogators have overcame the ethical issues holding them back, I don't a single US law is going to be what stops them from hooking up the electrodes. Originally posted by emcee I'm quoting myself here because on further thought I realised this law would be different because individuals can be prosecuted under it in US courts. Still completely beside the point, however. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| There are TONNES of laws about torture.
It is wrong, barbaric, immoral and evil. The US and other nations (rightly) tried to stop Soviet torture only to turn and do it themselves? Hypocrites. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| Yes, I would assume there are many laws against torture, and even just the individual acts involved in common forms of torture. However, I'm not sure of how many of them (aside from international law) apply to wartime intellegence gathering. I mean outside of the context of war, killing another human being is almost universally illegal, but soldiers do it legally all the time. I believe what sets this law apart, is that it holds individuals whom, while acting outside the chain of command, either order or commit torture, legally responsible in US court, even during war. And rightly so.
The real sad part of this, is that I believe much of the purpose to this bill was to send a message to world of a strong stance against torture. However opposition to the bill by the Administration (and even veto threats from the president) have served to make us look even worse then before. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
| Wait, I got thrown off somewhere and this is what I got.
There is a bill that is trying to get passed that stops torture, and the administration is fighting to make sure it doesn't get passed, although the Genova Convention already stopped torture? Well, as for torture goes, it doesn't work. Regardless of moral rights, it doesn't work all the time. While it might work on some and I could imagine hundreds of thousands of possible tortures, anyone that really wants to will be able to lie and make the whole thing a failure. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6294 days Last view: 6294 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Dracoon Originally they were talking about vetoing it, but after the overwhelming support it recieved, they moved to just trying get intellegence officers exempt (which of course would totally defeat the purpose), now they're working on a deal with McCain to change the wording. I don't know why McCain feels they need to reach a comprimise, it will pass whether the Administration likes it or not. |
| Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Torture bill |
| |
