America can torture whomever they wish, deal with it.

[Snorri1234]

We must be better than our enemies, or else we are our own.

Exactly! You can't condemn the actions of others and then do the same thing.

[Frigidus]

We must be better than our enemies, or else we are our own.

Exactly! You can't condemn the actions of others and then do the same thing.

No, you're not getting it, anything America does is automatically good, as that is how we define ourselves. Kind of like the Ontological Proof of God.

[muy_thaiguy]

Abu Ghaib!!!!!!!! Who really gives a shit about that anymore those disgusting terrorists freaks got what they deserved!

Hey, fucktard. HALF OF THE PEOPLE THERE WERE INNOCENT. Hold on, let me clarify what type of stupidity this is.



Question: Which of these people should be tortured if there are vague suspicions that they are a terrorist?

A) People in the Middle East

B) Anyone who isn't a citizen of the United States

C) Anyone

Or D) People who are willing to strap bombs on their bodies, run into the middle of a crowded street and kill dozens of innocents just because.

KEY:

If you answered A, you're a racist!

Yay! All people in the Middle East are of the same race! Turks are not Turks but Arabs, Israelis are not Israelis but Arabs, Pakistanis are Arabs, Iranians are Arabs, etc!

I'm calling stereotype here.

If you answered B, you're a self-centered, apathetic asshole

Or, Have been taught that people outside the US (or current country) are lesser beings then you from early on.

If you answered C, you're a lunatic totalitarian.

Really? I was going to go for complete equality, after all, we have no idea who might be terrorists.

D)You have your head on straight.

[Snorri1234]

It has also been argued that because the terrorists detained do not fight for an existing nation that they are not protected.

The f*ck? That's the most retarded argument ever.

Seriously, I want to talk about this more. This just honestly seems like the biggest retard of an argument in like, ever.

Did the US just ignore the declaration of human rights by saying that if a person doesn't uhm...like fight for a nation or whatever...automatically is excluded from being a human? Did someone just add a disclaimer to the definition saying: "..unless you're not fighting for a nation but merely for your political ideas."?


Seriously?

[Snorri1234]

Abu Ghaib!!!!!!!! Who really gives a shit about that anymore those disgusting terrorists freaks got what they deserved!

Hey, fucktard. HALF OF THE PEOPLE THERE WERE INNOCENT. Hold on, let me clarify what type of stupidity this is.



Question: Which of these people should be tortured if there are vague suspicions that they are a terrorist?

A) People in the Middle East

B) Anyone who isn't a citizen of the United States

C) Anyone

Or D) People who are willing to strap bombs on their bodies, run into the middle of a crowded street and kill dozens of innocents just because.

Hint: The people in the D-catagory aren't the only ones in the camps.

KEY:

If you answered A, you're a racist!

Yay! All people in the Middle East are of the same race! Turks are not Turks but Arabs, Israelis are not Israelis but Arabs, Pakistanis are Arabs, Iranians are Arabs, etc!

I'm calling stereotype here.

Actually, racism doesn't magically mean one single race! If you hate all black people you're still a racist, even if people from South Africa are different from people in Zimbabwe.

If you answered B, you're a self-centered, apathetic asshole

Or, Have been taught that people outside the US (or current country) are lesser beings then you from early on.

Which is sort of the same. Or, better put, exactly the same.

[Juan_Bottom]

Contrary to your opinions what is and is not considered torture is a hotly contested issue today.

Clearly you missed my first post. There is no discussion anymore. The UN, Amnesty International, and Red Cross have labeled it TORTURE.

It has also been argued that because the terrorists detained do not fight for an existing nation that they are not protected.

This was also argued by the Germans during WWII, when they killed all enemies who weren't in uniform.

"We were still the masters, and no under heaven could judge us.....

A firing squad was performing it's duties. Four consecutive salvos rang out, each one disposing of four partisans. Their bodies were left in the snow, and the squad marched back to the village....
An officer(ss) spoke to us breifly about the tragedy we'd just witnessed. The partisans were held responsible for everything that had happened. Also, partisians were not eligable for the consideration of a man in uniform. The laws of war condemned them to death automatically, without a trial."

-Guy Sajer a German soldier on the Eastern front from the book 'the Forgotten Soldier.'

Remember, nearly all of those tortured have never had a trial. In the case of the U.S.S. Cole attack for instance, those "terrorists" were all released.

Not entirely random, but yes.

Yes. Read.

Abu Ghaib!!!!!!!! Who really gives a shit about that anymore those disgusting terrorists freaks got what they deserved!

Either you're a troll, or you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well, sure, the fact that we're even discussing torture as a legitimate option is horrifying. What are we, barbarians? I remember in another thread along these lines, someone made a reference to discussing the legitimacy of rape as along the same lines, and SOMEONE ACTUALLY SAID THAT THERE MIGHT BE SITUATIONS WHERE RAPE IS OK. What the hell is wrong with us.

That was my thread. It was about photos of soldiers raping a women at Abu Ghaib. Many others reported being raped as well. I can't remember who said it was ok though.... It pissed me off too....

Plus, it wasn't a small minority who were innocent in Abu Ghraib. They'd literally imprison people for months on nothing but anonymous tips. Plus, there have been occasions in which the family of the suspects were also tortured.

Yes. Read.

[Neoteny]

If this is true than Someone named GabonX must be the missing Lemur-Monkey link. Yeah, that's right, I know what a Gabon is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbon

[Juan_Bottom]

Up yours NEOTENY.... UP YOURS

I was figuring I had 50-50 in my head.... I shoulda double checked.... or gone with Lemur-man-link like I was thinking.....

[Neoteny]

Up yours NEOTENY.... UP YOURS

I was figuring I had 50-50 in my head.... I shoulda double checked.... or gone with Lemur-man-link like I was thinking.....

I aim to please. You can't sneak gibbons past me...

[jonesthecurl]

booooohooooo so we torture terrorists who want to waste our "infidel" lives who gives a shit anything to keep my family and friends safe is cool wit me!

Yeah....we only torture terrorists....

hahahahaha what do u think that were just running around torturing random people? get a grip you lunatic!

The government must be glad to know that it has the intellectual elite on its side at least.

[HapSmo19]

Anyone hear about that case a while back where an young(7?) Afgani boy had his testicals crushed with a car battery in front of his family? The CIA was trying to get his father to talk...

I was just wondering what the FBI and CIA are up to nowadays.

Seriously though.

[Jenos Ridan]

It has also been argued that because the terrorists detained do not fight for an existing nation that they are not protected.

The f*ck? That's the most retarded argument ever.

The Geneva Conventions are clear on who is and is not a legal combatant. Terrorists are illegal combatants, therefore they are not protected by international law, regardless whether or not definitions of torture exist. The definition of illegal combatant also applies to some extent to "defense contractors" who fight in lieu of regular troops.

So no Snorri, it is not the most retarded argument ever and only a retard would say that.

[Snorri1234]

It has also been argued that because the terrorists detained do not fight for an existing nation that they are not protected.

The f*ck? That's the most retarded argument ever.

The Geneva Conventions are clear on who is and is not a legal combatant. Terrorists are illegal combatants, therefore they are not protected by international law, regardless whether or not definitions of torture exist. The definition of illegal combatant also applies to some extent to "defense contractors" who fight in lieu of regular troops.

So no Snorri, it is not the most retarded argument ever and only a retard would say that.

It is, it is very much so actually.

The thing is about the geneva conventions that if a person is not a lawfull combatant (i.e. not a soldier) he is not automatically not a person anymore. He still has rights.

Let me quote the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia:
"there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of [the Fourth Convention], provided that its article 4 requirements [defining a protected person] are satisfied."
And I'm ignoring the fact that discussion about this exists so article 5 of convention 3 would probably apply.


But regardless of whether it exists or not, the torture of other people because "they're not protected" is not only morally revolting but honestly gives away the impression that you think not everyone is equal. That Americans are always better than others.

[brooksieb]

Well having experience in this situations torturing is not the answer to get information, torturing is only good for shaming/getting back on enemies.

[Snorri1234]

Well having experience in this situations torturing is not the answer to get information, torturing is only good for shaming/getting back on enemies.

Yup, and even though the satisfaction from torture feels good, we should be morally better than them.

[brooksieb]

Well having experience in this situations torturing is not the answer to get information, torturing is only good for shaming/getting back on enemies.

Yup, and even though the satisfaction from torture feels good, we should be morally better than them.

Though there is a limit to which a person is at war can take... Especially if it is a personal war.