Prisoners 'killed' at US Base

Omitting the ad hominem remark that, in Blatham's opinion, is a sign of high intellect and liberal viewpoint, I have to say the following. Israel is a small country, therefore it cannot afford things the USA can. If these restrictions did not exist, the terror problem would be solved once and forever (and absolute majority of Arabs would remain alive, safe and sound, by the way; but the terror leaders and activists would receive treatment they deserve).

0 Replies

blatham-

Quote:

You really ought to separate yourself in this discussion from the happy psychosis evidenced above.

Are you sending me back into the kitchen?

0 Replies

I love this... anyone got popcorn? Cool

0 Replies

ahem: fine people of all persuasions, there is the obvious in all this and its really quite simple, its called laws and conventions, there are rules and the US helped create those rules regardless of what others do or not do, we are either a nation of law or we are international outlaws. to refer of Viet Nam or Afghanistan or Israel for that matter is not of our concern.

0 Replies

(crowd noises - crowd noises) author! author!!!

0 Replies

Blatham -- You are right to blow a gasket on this. I am filled with disgust at those who imply that, Aw gee, we really can do anything we want and find a justification, or hey... as long as it isn't ugly torture I wouldn't want to know about but only psychological torture, it's, you know, okay, right? People actually get through wars without committing atrocities and they are the people who should be leading us, should be our moral role models, not the compromisers and and compromised. You can't have it both ways -- America The Beautiful? or America The Damned?

Gee, you remember those people who were willing to die for their country? And not just those wearing a uniform? Remember civilians who didn't think it was okay to retaliate with murder, even during war or occupation? Alors, Blatham, ou sont les neiges d'antan?

0 Replies

dys...of course, right on the money.

tartarin...thanks for the gasket refit.

The means (torture) is justified by the end (possible information that will maybe prevent human injury). Are some people born this stupid, or is it trained into them?

I give a pass to Phoenix here, as I suspect she is thinking of levels of deprivation or stress which wouldn't violate international agreements and codes (as in the Geneva Convention). But once one begins excusing maltreatment beyond that point, then one becomes exactly as ugly as that which one is trying to prevent.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Lemme see, now. Some prisoners who may be Al Quaeda related are beaten to death in custody of American soldiers.... nope, no reason to suspect foul play on the soldier's part there...

It is possible I missed something, but I don't recall anyone even remotely suggesting that there was "no reason to suspect foul play on the soldier's part". (If I did miss something, please correct me. I admit to skimming these discussions sometimes.)

The only statements I have seen made are by those who assume they know that one or more soldiers are criminally culpable and those who believe we do not have enough information to formulate a meaningful opinion either way.

Neither of those positions translates to "no reason to suspect foul play on the soldier's part".

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

OK, by all means, there are no proofs that they were beaten by any specific U.S. soldier. And if the guilt is not proven, then we may assume that the soldiers are innocent.

Guess I was thinking about comments like this. Seems to be bending over backwards to deny the obvious implications of the situation.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

steissd wrote:
OK, by all means, there are no proofs that they were beaten by any specific U.S. soldier. And if the guilt is not proven, then we may assume that the soldiers are innocent.

Guess I was thinking about comments like this. Seems to be bending over backwards to deny the obvious implications of the situation.

I agree, and thanks for pointing it out. I did miss that one.

I do not agree, nor do I find it logical to state that absent proof that a specific soldier killed a man we can assume that no soldier did so.

0 Replies

It's a slippery slope. Torture apologists like to use extreme circumstances to justify their sanguine stance. "But they be evil", "but they torture too", "it was their choice to be bad".
And so it goes, evil is justified because it's used to "fight evil" and simple minds are incapable of comprehending that this simply justifies the other side. The ostensible "good guys" are just another mob using the specter of the evil enemy to justify their own evil.
It is indeed a slippery slope, and it is worth considering what's at the bottom. Only idiots are willing to sacrifice the validity of a cause, the validity of collective existence for short term gain or even the possibility of short term gain.
And to answer another one of the stunning displays of simple thinking, the only people who can't afford not to torture are those whose existence is so weakly justified that these tactics need be stooped to.

0 Replies

I can determine only that many of the facts are undetermined. I don't hold all military personnel immune to such as murder ... but the instance of that is far rarer than is the instance of lethal violence amonmg a confined assemblage of vicious thugs. Its not impossible that Goodguys wrongfully killed Badguys. It is statistically far more probable Badguys killed one another, paticularly given that the military personnel supposedly involved are an elite unit composed of folks with substantial and exemplary service records.

As to torture, I don't advocate the methods of The Spanish Inquisition, but I see no problem with psychological pressure and such discomforts as isolation, cool environment, poor sleep conditions, and merely adequate food. I'm sort of ambivalent about drugs ... I would tend to be skeptical of the value of information thus derived. Get me stoned, and I'll spin you any yarn I figure you'll enjoy hearing. Lots of folks are like that.

timber

0 Replies

timber

You certainly know that your opinion is opposite international law:

Quote:

Any statute allowing the use physical force or intentionally inflict mental suffering in interrogations - even if restricted to life-saving cases and even if torture is explicitly prohibited - contravenes one of the most fundamental principles of international law: the absolute prohibition on torture and ill-treatment.

This prohibition appears in every document, agreement, and decision of international organizations dealing with this subject, and decisions of international courts unequivocally support this absolute prohibition. Torture is treated, like slavery, genocide, and war crimes, as unjustifiable at all times and in all circumstances.

According to international law and decisions of international tribunals, the prohibition does not only apply to methods that cause severe pain and suffering, but to methods of interrogation that intentionally cause physical or mental pain or suffering in order to obtain information or a confession. The prohibition applies to every use of physical force in interrogations. International law does not provide any condition or reservation pursuant to which torture or ill-treatment is considered legal.

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the UN General Assembly adopted on 10 December 1948, states that, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Article 31 of the Fourth General Convention of 1949 directs that, "No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties."

Article 3 of the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, unanimously adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1975, states: "No state may permit or tolerate torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which took effect on 26 June 1987, repeats the definition and the general prohibitions of the 1975 declaration, and is expressly intended to prevent torture by government officials and to punish officials who violate the convention. It also notes that, "An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."

The Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the UN on 17 December 1979, provides:

No law enforcement official may inflict, instigate or tolerate any act of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior orders or exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, a threat to national security, internal political instability or any other public emergency as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

[In 1997 and 1998, the UN Committee Against Torture deliberated on Israel's report. The Committee unanimously ruled that GSS interrogation methods constitute torture. The Committee added that the Convention against Torture's prohibition "is a prohibition that does not allow derogation in respect of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of any kind.]"

0 Replies

BTW

Some German officials - judges, police force and polticans as well - share timber's opinion.

0 Replies

trespassers will wrote:

dlowan wrote:
What is the relevance of the comments about there being no box for cause of death unknown? Surely blunt force trauma is not something that occurs in the absence of intent - whether it be suicide or homicide?

I have no idea what happened to whom, but just to offer a point of fact; blunt force trauma can result from objects falling and striking a person and other instances where no other person caused said trauma. So yes, blunt force trauma can and does result in the absence of intent.

Er, yes, Trespassers - however, surely any competent pathologist is able to distinguish between the kind of trauma resulting from a fall, and that arising from a blow or blows!

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

BTW

Some German officials - judges, police force and polticans as well - share timber's opinion.

There is considerable "Official Support" for "My Position", and a good deal of legal precedent which condones rigorous interogation. There is a difference, a vast difference, between torture and accepted psychological tecniques. Thumbscrews and genital shocks are not cool; a cool room and erratic sleep periods interspersed with intense questioning are cool, as far as myself and any number of International Lawyers are concerned.
In fact, its pretty much "Accepted Practice" throughout the Law Enforcement Community worldwide.

As to who did what to whom in this particular incident, the matter is under investigation. No doubt whatever the investigators conclude, their findings will be met with skepticism from some quarters. Personally, I am concerned by such reports as this, and look for resolution. I am not alarmed, and while I do not blanketly exclude the possibility of misdeed on the part of US troops, I see scant likelyhood of it. Bad things happen to bad people too ... particularly when they are in bad places full of other bad people.

timber

0 Replies

"There is considerable "Official Support" for "My Position", and a good deal of legal precedent which condones rigorous interogation."

Timber: If 1000 people support an immoral action and only one person supports the moral action, should the 1000 people prevail?

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Timber: If 1000 people support an immoral action and only one person supports the moral action, should the 1000 people prevail?

Of course not. However, the 1000 would usually prevail over the one. That's one of the problems with pragmatism. A chasm exists between the real world and the ideal world, and it is necessary for us to try to bridge that chasm.

timber

0 Replies

So, Timber, do we think plan pragmatically or do we plan morally, understanding that pragmatism knocks on the door now and then?

(You've made some terrific posts, Timber, in the past little bit -- here and in other threads. Comprensive, non-specific appreciation from this fellow poster!)

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

So, Timber, do we think plan pragmatically or do we plan morally, understanding that pragmatism knocks on the door now and then?

Thorny issue, isn't it? I have no ready answer, nor have theoricians or philosophers. What we want and what we may obtain are often very different things. Life is just so damned pragmatic, isn't it? :wink:

And thanks for the kind words ... I enjoy your interaction as well. Whether we agree or not, you state your positions well. I admire that. You are a thoughtful, sincere, and honorable person, from what I've seen.

timber

0 Replies

Prisoners 'killed' at US Base

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know