BS: US torture

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: GUEST,colwyn dane
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 07:58 PM

Regarding information from prisoners:
Mark Clark in his autobiography "Calculated Risk" revealed at the wars end,in Italy, they 'bugged' a villa and stuffed it with captured German generals. After a two days of near silence they sent in to their captives some crates of Scotch; about two hours later the shorthand writers were working their heads off as the German generals gushed forth a torrent of information.

There are many ways to skin a cat and if you can't skin then hold a leg - this quote owes a lot to A. Lincoln.


"Crusade in Europe" was the title of Eisenhowers autobiography - I don't believe it had any religious significance.



CD.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Dec 02 - 08:13 PM

But then the war in Europe wasn't open to being seen as Christian versus Muslim. Context is everything.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: ard mhacha
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 06:53 AM

I don`t know if Gareth, McGrath, and all of the other lads and lassies that are contributing to this thread, realise, that the Protestant=Unionist terrorists have continued to slaughter each other in their drug war.
This is going on on a daily basis, and as the IRA are not involved the British press tends to overlook this.
Their has been 12 deaths in the past few months, i`m sure Ireland will give you more details as he is closer to the action. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 08:29 AM

I would not know as much about that as you Ard, not being rude but I do not get involved with the loyalist thing, don't fly flags,have no time for the OO or any organisation which divide my community. And definitely have no time for terrorists or their human rights.

Have time for a peaceful non terrorist linked united Ireland so we can all get on with life.

I do not see giving people a taste of their own medicine or using their tactics the same as becoming like them. WHY? Because no terrorist voluntarily holds themselves accountable to anyone but themselves. When has anyone taken the IRA or any loyalist crowd to the European Court of Human rights? Compare that to governments who abide by rules.

The harsh conditions that are being complained about would be nothing compared to those on the battle field in a strung out war and all that entails.Using whatever means to prevent this is fine by me,especially when the nut cases involved are among those who started this situation.

BTW McG of H I think it is disgusting that you compare the terrorists who carried out the Enniskillen Bomb, the Omagh Bomb, Claudy, Bloody Friday, with those of special forces, people who try and do prevent such atrocities. (ARD, Bloody Sunday was wrong also no excuse for it)

You hold terrorists up as some equivalent to special forces etc,complete nonsense, do you think Martin McGuinness took anti interrogation training, did he heck, for being second in command and all that he did not have the confidence of all the people he commanded. This person is one example of the so called hard terrorist, many many more like him on both sides.

You should know that those people who filled the H block were teenagers when they were caught, the good old terrorists recruited youngsters to murder people, are they hardened or just on the fringe?

These people would have to know the quarter master and have a plan of attack, who would give them that and the weapons to carry out such attacks. Popular phrase the Godfathers, these aren't hardened terrorists either as they hid behind the youth and sent them to do the dirty work.

Link that with Bin Laden, he sends others to do the dirty work and that's not a hard thing to do.

With all this fair play and not reducing ourselves to the terrorists level, how do you combat terrorism, Bin Laden in particular? If the world gives in to Bin Laden, how long would the moderates last, considering the radical would be in charge?

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 08:37 AM

"I do not see giving people a taste of their own medicine or using their tactics the same as becoming like them."

That's terrorist talk. Seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 08:48 AM

"...it is disgusting that you compare the terrorists ..."

A point about logic here, because that kind of thing keeps coming up, you point out some similarity between two different things, and are accused of suggesting that they are identical in other ways.

If I point out that an elephant and a kangaroo are both mammals, and that they both have two eyes and a tail, that does not mean that I am trying to insinuate that an elephant has a pouch or that a kangaroo has a trunk.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 08:59 AM

At the time of the War of independence,formations were used, from Squares to lines, the British were experts at it,standing facing the enemy and blasting away. Americans would have lost if they kept this up,playing the British at their own game.

It was the tactic of skirmishes, hit and run which prevailed, the British seen this as unfair and did not employ such methods, would only make em like the rebels. Who won?

Improvisation the best tool in any soldiers arsenal, adapt and improvise, that's how wars are won. Worry about the niceties when we have peace and security and the luxury to do so.

How would you combat Bin Laden?

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 09:07 AM

"That's terrorist talk. Seriously. "

I would agree with you if such actions were taken by people who hold themselves accountable to no one but themselves. How many referendums have been held by any terrorist group into which atrocity would be carried out next? Have we ever seen coverage of what terrorists are going to do in the media or any accountability or seeking of approval or justifying their actions. No need for it if you are only accountable to yourself and your own self imposed morality.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 09:18 AM

So if you have some kind of authority structure and you are obeying orders that makes it OK? The things done by Hitler don't count as terrorism?

(And don't go saying "how dare you compare so and so to Hitler" - remember the elephant and the kangaroo.)

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 09:37 AM

Would not bother me if Bin Laden was sent on his way with any of the methods Hitler used, you must understand I am talking about those who are terrorists, not innocent people, sort of negates your concerns.

We have an amazing set of people in N.I. who call themselves the silent majority, setting themselves apart from the "troubles" not being terrorists or trying to stop them but cries foul when certain sensitivities are offended. Who is it that gives these people the choice of doing so? Certainly not the terrorist as they do not care who they kill or terrorise to their way of thinking.

If the silent majority is left to deal with the terrorist how long would it be before they set their sensitivities aside? I am in no way making a case for any war, but I understand certain things have to be done, and if it was not for the likes of Bin Laden we would not have to do them. So I place no blame on those who do them, I place it on those who make them to have to be done TERRORISTS.

(And don't go saying "how dare you compare so and so to Hitler" - remember the elephant and the kangaroo.) HaHA Good one.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: ard mhacha
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 11:17 AM

On a previous Thread Ireland panicked when a Container Van was left on the Sprucefield roundabout.
He would not be my ideal companion in a crisis, and he still ignores his fellow Unionists turf war.
Remember that you are not the only one who desires peace here and in the rest of the Worlds trouble spots, but your notion that tortures is ok I can understand, as the internees in 1972 were all Catholics, 90% of whom were not involved in anything, just the fact that they were Catholics was sufficent.
Also when this sick counties was banged together in 1922 it`s first Prime Sinister Lord Craigavon decreed "that this is a Protestant Parliment for a Protestant people".
And damm little has changed. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 12:00 PM

Did not panic vented frustration. Your the worst type of bigot there is ARD, a real reason why we will never see peace in Ireland. I condemn all terrorists make no pathetic excuses for any of them can't say the same for you. Your right dam little has changed, when people like you try to take the high moral ground, you are not as above it as you like to think or give the impression that you are, absolute disgrace.

I still ignore fellow unionists turf war,where do we go from here, my accusing you of ignoring that one of the worlds worst terrorist organisation the IRA are still re-arming recruiting and training.

Here's the difference I realise that you have as much to do with this as I have which is nothing, your slimy attempt at making me out to be part of the turf war , clearly shows the type of bigoted person you are. I'm protestant so I must be a loyalist thug, as I said your a disgrace and the perfect example of whats wrong with the country.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 12:49 PM

Presumably we're working on different definitions of "terrorist". I'd define a torturer, and someone who colludes in torture by a subordinate or agent, as a terrorist. I'd define someone who carries out reprisals against civilians as a terrorist. I'd define someone who sets off bombs directed at non-combatants as a terrorist.

That would apply whoever was giving them their own orders. What you seem to be saying, Ireland, is that if they were working for a government, especially one which had some underpinning of constitutionality, they wouldn't count as terrorists.

I suspect that isn't quite what you mean, since you appear to class Taliban supporters as terrorists, and the Taliban constituted the de facto government of Afghanistan, recognised as legitimate and supported by the government of its neighbour Pakistan.

I believe that there are certain acts which are criminal whoever does them, and that is what I mean by terrorism. That's a different definition from the one which would see terrorism as simply meaning any activity which is carried out by particular groups which are defined as terrorist organisations. It is both wider and narrower - it would include some actions carried out by otherwise legitimate governments, and exclude certain activities carried out by illegal organisations.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 01:30 PM

The Taleban was not democratically elected, those in Afghanistan have spoken of their resentment of Taleban members from surrounding countries coming to Afghanistan to enforce the Talebans rules based on the various Islamic Laws. Who elected them to control the country in such a way?

We can look at the situation like this, the governments of countries that allow terrorists to get away with what they want to do, are torturing it's own people, simply because the do not intervene.

What I'm saying is simple I have no qualms in torturing terrorists,and no it does not have any ramifications for me as no one has came up with an alternative. How would you combat Bin Laden? Are you happy to live under his rule and a regime like the Talebans? Again if not what would you do? stoop to their level to stop them.

I can do as you do and be ultra liberal but that does not defend the weak or stop the terrorists of this world, of all the injustices one group or another feels that a country has done to them, it does not justify the death of one innocent person. If torturing a terrorist which combats such actions I for one would loose no sleep, and that does not make a bad person. What does though is sitting back wringing my hands and saying well you know.... and doing nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 03:41 PM

No the Taliban weren't elected, any more than the present government in Afghanistan, and in large numbers of other countries round the world.

Hitler of course was elected. Is that really a significant difference?

What you wrote there about being willing to accept, when carried out by a government which you recognise, what I would define as terrorist acts, doesn't make you a "bad person", Ireland. I think though that it does make you a terrorist sympathiser.

I would strongly suspect that the use of torture by its opponents is far more likely to help Al Qaeda and all it stands for than significantly damage it.

The alternatve to torture is simple. It is to refuse to torture. There are other ways of carrying on a struggle.

In any case, within our legal system the use of torture is outlawed. It is a criminal act to torture a priosner, or to collude in torture on our behalf. If it is to be permitted, along with other acts of atrocity, it is our right as citizens of a democracy to be allowed to approve this change in our legal system, and in the case of most countries, to withdraw from the treaty obligations which confirm and underpin this outlawing of the practice.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 05:15 PM

I am a terrorist sympathiser because I agree with using their own tactics against them, well lets look at this bit of logic.

Not too long ago you were extolling the ability of the German Army during WW2, Hitler's Army, many lessons were learnt from this army and used by other countries, does that make them Hitler supporters?Are the soldiers who fought Hitler's army now to be classed as murderers? What way would you have handled Hitler and his Army?

Now take into consideration your elephant and kangaroo logic, it would indicate you want it both ways.

Words come easy principles come easy the people who pay for them are usually the innocent, not the terrorist as they do not care for words or principles otherwise they would be using other means to advance their cause.

When we have people who are willing to use any means to murder children, mothers and fathers, how are you going to combat that? Bin Laden has no respect for life or limb, how much do you think he will have for your way of life? How do you suggest that the American Government defends it people against Bin Ladens threats, he is quite happy to have children murdered just because they are American, what harm have they done to him?

We can all take the moral high ground but that's all it is high morals, what use are they to a dead child and grieving parents, is telling them at least we are not stooping to their level going to cut it?

Here is the frustrating part you condemn but have no answers,you want principles applied and adhered to distinguish us from terrorists who in the meantime do not care if you fight them honourably or not. Where is the logic in that?

"No the Taliban weren't elected, any more than the present government in Afghanistan, and in large numbers of other countries round the world."

Does that justify the Taleban,it's ok for them to do it because other places are also at it. Big flaw in your logic, Al Quaeda and the Taleban used torture what is wrong with it being used against them?

In your accepting the principle and justifying of the above would that make you a terrorist sympathiser?

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 05:38 PM

I wasn't "justifying" the Taliban, just pointing outr tat its constitutinbal status wasn't that much duifferent from a lot of other regimes. The reasons for being opposed to its actions does not rest on that, but on the actions themselves.

Adopting terrorist tactics because the people you are fighting use them does not stop them being terrorist tactics. Everybody who uses terrorist tactics would justify it on the ground that this is the only way or the best way to fight an opponent which cannot be beaten in any other way.

"People who are willing to use any means to murder children, mothers and fathers" - there is no shortage of these on any side in a modern war. Whether it is actually an effective way of waging war in the long run is questionable, as is the question of whether torture is an effective technique. For example, it seems highly likely that carpet bombing of German cities lengthened the last war by stiffening resustance. Bombing atrocities by the IRA probably had the same effect on the British Government and people.

The same is true about torture. Even on purely pragmatic grounds it does more harm than good to those who go in for it.

You justify torture, you justify terrorism. Facilis descensus Averno.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 06:21 PM

"Adopting terrorist tactics because the people you are fighting use them does not stop them being terrorist tactics. Everybody who uses terrorist tactics would justify it on the ground that this is the only way or the best way to fight an opponent which cannot be beaten in any other way."

Do what it takes to eliminate the problem as soon as possible, as principles are paid for by innocents,who when dead have no use for them. But that is the problem when we are not directly affected we can afford to have such principles.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Dec 02 - 06:52 PM

"Do what it takes to eliminate the problem as soon as possible" - and I'm sure that is essentially what Bin Laden would say.

Principles are there for a reason, to defend ourselves against ourselves. Without principles there is no depth to which we cannot sink. They are not luxuries.

Happy New Year anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 01 Jan 03 - 07:56 AM

What do a mean anyway, you can have your views and a Happy New Year and without any anyways, ha ha

I agree with what you say on principle but unfortunately princples do no protect lives when the other side has none. On principle people would not have shot a mother in the head while witnessed by her children, but it happens.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Jan 03 - 08:23 AM

Happy New Year means Happy New Year, with the implication that disagreements shouldn't get in the way of that.

Atrocities happen in conflicts, and they always get used to justify counter atrocities. It's always possible to point to something that has been done by the other side, and use it as reason for doing something you know you shouldn't do, and then forget about that when the other side comes back with another counter atrocity.

That doesn't mean saying everything balances out and both sides are as bad as each other, because that isn't always true - maybe it isn't even true most times, though I'm not sure about that, in the long run.
It means refusing to allow yourself to do certain things, full stop. It means refusing to allow the enemy to determine your actions.

In practice the evidence seems to be that the effect of adopting atrocity tactics is to cause greater harm to innocent people, even to innocent people on your own side, whatever side that may be. I'm sure that has been the case in Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 12:20 AM

Torture is not terrorism, at least not as the U.S.A practices it. Only if the threat of torture were being used against a populace would it truly be terrorism. Notwithstanding, the American government's use of torture is utterly abominable. Not only does it violate the Constitution and a number of international treaties, it destroys the meaning behind the ideals on which the nation was founded. As to "principles are paid for by innocents," they are also the ones who pay for lack of principles. If terrorism is combated with unacceptable methods, there will no longer be any reason, moral or practical, to prefer our government to Al Qaeda. We were all taught "two wrongs don't make a right." In fact, two wrongs make three, then four, then five . . .

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 06:09 AM

Whose lack of principles, the terrorists, their supporters, the people who stand back and allow it to happen?

Far too simplistic, Al Qaeda were not elected, so who are they accountable to? governments are elected and are accountable for their actions, it is easier to vote people out of office than get rid of any terrorist who decides to run your country.

All very fine and humanitarian but not one practical solution as how to combat the threat of Bin Laden.

Noriaga had what could be torture techniques used on him, methods described in the first post,US in Bagram using torture and the sleep deprivation and psychops.

Would people prefer the alternative method of arresting Noriaga, that is sending in a person who has volunteered to protect and serve his country with the real possibility of getting killed?

My opinion is this if any method to prevent the loss of life of those who choose to serve their country it is used it is fine by me. Why? I'm not the one with the prospect of getting injured or killed and at least they are doing something other than moralising.

I do not agree with the electrodes to the genitals type torture, sleep deprivation,white noise etc is a walk in the field compared to being caught up in a fire fight or in battle field conditions.

We need to define what is torture in it's true sense and how valuable it is to saving lives on all sides of the equation especially those of our own armed forces, and take into account they did not ask Bin Laden to organise the flying of aeroplanes into buildings. But have the burden of defending their country with what looks like one hand behind their back.

And if it happens again who will get the blame? The very same people who are being criticised now for using modern interrorgation techniques.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: NicoleC
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 12:25 PM

No one said having ethics and principles was easy.

If you abandon them at the first sign of hardship, you never had them.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 04:09 PM

If the abandoning of ethics and principles that people uphold is seen as easy then many have no idea about the position we ask our security forces to put themselves in.

What would make people think that a soldier does not have the same angst about abandoning their ethics,principles and religous beliefs as anyone else?

It is easier for people to accept that a soldier gives up his/her life while defending the right for people to have such ethics and principles,take the soldier out of the equation and who is left with the dilemma? The people who see themselves above the messy business and do not want to come out of their comfort zones..

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 05:01 PM

And all those justifications can be offered up by anyone engaged in terrorism.

As for elections and so forth, the people who control the world and who make life and death decisions that shape and often threaten the louves of millions were never elected by the people of the world. We haven't got that kind of system.

The point I make is here is, don't judge the morality of actions by the political status of the people doing them. Judge them by what they actually involve doing to other human beings.

Hitler was no better for having being elected. Gandhi was no worse for never having been elected.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 05:12 PM

A lady is being raped
by men who claim they love her
How is that a hate crime
by a hero and protector?

They must love her more than you
She cracked at her foundation
and tumbled to the ground.
Raped for the good of the nation.

So you may be safe and sound.



http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/statueoff.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 05:32 PM

Then again those who fought Hitler became Hitler.

The policeman who kills the murderer becomes the murderer.

So whats the difference we are all terrorists anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 03 - 07:36 PM

A policeman who took the law into his own hands, and intentionally and unnecessarily killed a murderer (or someone he believed to be a murderer), would of course himself be guilty of murder.

We may well all be capable of being terrorists, true enough. It depends on what we do, not on the nature of the command structure under which we are operating.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 10:02 AM

How about this, a group of people walks into your home, kills members of your family in doing so kill some of their own group. You manage to overpower them, one of the group who lies dying, laughs at you, saying, it is not over, we have planted bombs every where aimed at your loved ones. Bang one goes off killing more family, the rest of the group praise their god for allowing them to murder their enemy,your family. What do you do?

Bit simplistic I admit but pretty much the same scenario terrorist put us in today.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 01:48 PM

In that scenario, you already have 1) clear proof of guilt on the part of the terrorist and 2) clear proof of an immediate threat which can clearly be prevented through the obtaining of information from the terrorist. In such clear circumstances, one can argue that it is moral to torture the terrorist if (and only if)it is necessary to obtain the information in time to save as many lives as possible. However, it cannot be argued that one can torture a suspected terrorist in order to hopefully gain information that may prevent possible threats, when it is believed that the information will probably not be gained through other methods.

Also, there seems to be a bit of confusion about the role of the armed forces nowadays. The U.S. military is made up entirely of volunteers who were presumably informed as to what being in an army entailed prior to volunteering. This means that each and every one of them has agreed to risk their lives if it is deemed necessary for the interests of the American nation or people. They cannot be granted special permission to violate human rights, or the laws of the nation they have sworn to serve, to avoid the risk they voluntarily assumed.

Finally, it is not always as easy to remove an elected official from office as you make it out to be, Ireland. The task is made particularly hard when said officials have already been granted extraordinary powers over their own citizenry.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 02:53 PM

"They cannot be granted special permission to violate human rights, or the laws of the nation they have sworn to serve, to avoid the risk they voluntarily assumed."

Would this apply to your first paragraph FL? Or would it be acceptable to use modern interrorgation methods, to gain such info? I do not agree with using such methods on innocent people in any way.

In the UK they throw politiians out at the drop of a hat it seems, I accept it would be different for American politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jan 03 - 07:01 PM

As Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson wrote
in 1944, when he dissented in one of the Japanese-detention cases:

"The chief restraint upon those who command the physical forces of the country, in the future as in the past, must be their responsibility to the political
judgments of their contemporaries and to the moral judgments of history."

A

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 12:12 AM

Well, if you don't approve of using them on innocent people, where is the argument? You certainly can't argue that everyone the CIA questions is guilty, so if they are ever used, innocents are bound to suffer. It seems pretty clear that no method can be used in an interrogation, the purpose of which is in part to determine guilt, unless that method is acceptable to be used on the inevitable innocent subjects.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Ireland
Date: 04 Jan 03 - 07:38 AM

But you can argue that like those in the simple scenario, which we know are involved in the terrorist act, to save lives, using such methods would be acceptable.

At what point do we determine the surviving terrorists do not know anything or are just saying they know nothing, while the latest bomb goes off. Would you be more resolved to gain the intelligence?

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 05 Mar 03 - 09:20 PM

I was going to start a thread about torture and noticed this one...so I'll just add my two cents worth here. America is being conditioned to accept torture:

The link below goes to an image of one of the people who is acclimating you to torture:

Brought to you by...

And if you don't believe it is her job, go to the link below and type in 'Sawyer'. Look at the top of the page, too...at the FUNCTIONS of the groups mentioned:

Her real job

And the piece below is the type of thing her company is selling you nowadays:

"According to Pakistani and U.S. officials, Mohammed became more inclined to cooperate after three days of unspecified rough treatment by Pakistani interrogators....

One possible wedge to pry information out of Mohammed could be his 7- and 9-year-old sons. Pakistani authorities detained the boys in a raid last September, and it's been suggested that the CHILDREN could be used as a form of leverage, although their current whereabouts are unconfirmed...."

'Torture Questions' article

Meanwhile, on co-conspirator CNN (an admitted army psychological-operations station), the 'liberal' Dershowitz is calmly discussing needles under fingernails:

DERSHOWITZ: ...My basic point, though, is we should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered...it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice.... I would talk about nonlethal torture, say, a sterilized needle underneath the nail, which would violate the Geneva Accords, but you know, countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords. They do it secretly and hypothetically, the way the French did it in Algeria. If we ever came close to doing it, and we don't know whether this is such a case, I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite."

Dershowitz Interview

Sure, they're talking about a 'foreign' terrorist, but don't forget the new definition of 'domestic terrorist', from the recently-passed USA PATRIOT Act:

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

And the following is from an analysis of the upcoming Patriot Act 2, which will be passed after the U.S. govt sponsors another 'terrorist event' in order to galvanize people behind a rush of abusive legislation:

SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" definition to all American citizens who "may" have violated ANY provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act....

Under Section 501 a US citizen engaging in lawful activities can be grabbed off the street and thrown into a van never to be seen again. The Justice Department states that they can do this because the person "had inferred from conduct" that they were not a US citizen. Remember Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act states that any violation of Federal or State law can result in the "enemy combatant" terrorist designation.

Patriot Act 2 analysis

And in case you've forgotten, the US govt asked for bids for 3 million new concentration camp beds last summer:

Camps to be completed in January 2003

Which brings us back to where this 'debate on the appropriate use of torture' all began. This is what the people in charge of the US govt want to do to you:

Camp X-Ray detainees = You

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 06:09 AM

A lot of good points here. Certainly the IRA should face the Court of Human Rights for its actions (though I think only governments *can* be brought to that court.

But my initial thought was to wonder wether it's legitimate to use torture at any time.

Is it all right to torture someone you know is planning to kill?

Is it all right to torture someone who *might* be planning to kill?

Is it all right to torture someone who supports those who kill?

What is the effect of torture on the tortured?

What is its effect on the torturer?

What is its effect on the society of the tortured? And of the torturer?

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 10:46 AM

Interesting link here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2825575.stm

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 11:04 AM

I'd go with the consequentialist view: it is only acceptable to torture when you know absolutely that you will prevent more suffering than you cause.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 01:18 PM

No information which comes out of torture is dependable. None.

And Hitler tortured. Stalin tortured. Were they right to do so?

Under the new Patriot Acts you are a 'domestic terrorist' if you break a law (Act # 1), and, soon, if it 'appears' you 'may' break a law (Act # 2). So, should YOU be tortured as a terrorist if you 'might' break a law?

Torture is not an option. Ever.

And while the govt media is conditioning you to accept torture of humans (first foreigners, then your children), stories like this appear...

Torture of animals

The US govt is dehumanizing us. Suddenly there are hundreds of stories actually DEBATING whether torture of humans is alright, while torture of animals is forbidden. You are LESS THAN AN ANIMAL TO YOUR GOVT! Don't help them cut your throat.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Frankham
Date: 06 Mar 03 - 07:34 PM

Hi Ireland,

Looking at your statement,

"I agree that it is barbaric to torture people, but if it has to be done and if it saves lives then it is worth it. In the context of the War on Terror when we have Bin Laden terrorising the World any method to get intelligence is all right by me."

It has to be asked what is being gained here? Reliable intelligence? If you were being tortured, would you tell the truth to stop the torture? Or would you say anything you could to stop it?

You ask for alternatives. How about giving up torture as a means to an end? What is the result? A more humane society that can effectively recognize terrorism when it sees it. I understand your passion at injustice and wanting to solve the problem of the bin Laden's of the world. We all share in that.
How to go about it? Well, becoming like them is not the way to do it. That's what the torturer becomes.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM

I read an interesting book years ago about torture by the French authorities in the Algerian conflict - not un-analogous to the current US situation.

Two points stayed with me:

1) Torture started in Algeria - it was all right, apparently, to torture black Muslim terrorists - but it quickly leaked back to the French judicial system.

2) The torturers themselves - and their families and friends - were severely affected by their experiences for years afterwards; the book had contemporary interviews with people who had tortured others 20 years before, and were still suffering nightmares and personality disorders.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 12:50 PM

The CIA has used "stress and duress" techniques on al-Qaida suspects held at secret overseas detention centres, as well as contracting out their interrogation to foreign intelligence agencies known to routinely use torture, said a report published yesterday....

Dec 27 article

Two Afghan prisoners were killed while in US custody at their base at Bagram, a military coroner has concluded.

The report said "blunt force trauma" had contributed to the deaths....

The above being reported now...blunt instruments


In the past six weeks, the wives of four Fort Bragg soldiers have been slain. In all four cases, investigators said, their husbands were the killers....

Consequence of engaging in torture while in Afghanistan

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Beccy
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 03:40 PM

Bobert- You said, "No, make no bones about George Bush! He is a servant of the Devil! He serves Satan! He is no more a Christain than Herod! He has made *HIS* deal with the Devil. He will kill people for his own glory. It doesn't matter if it's one person or 100,000. The fact that he has made a decision that's *his* image is worth more than the life of one single human being makes him a *servant* of the Devil!"

I must have missed the thread where you stated your qualifications for performing the divine task of knowing a man's heart (no matter how much you hate him- which is an unChristian precept if ever there was one...)

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: toadfrog
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 03:59 PM

McGrath: I agree torture is an unmitigated evil. I agree that if Americans use it, they are doing wrong. I agree they are probably using it, so those persons or groups of Americans who are problably using torture are probably guilty of serious misfeasance. If they are torturing people, or authorizing torture, they should be made to stop. And punished.

But they are not "terrorists." Not all bad things are identical to all other bad things. You are using a metaphor, as if the only real meaning of a word were its metaphorical meaning. Thats a debating tactic; should not be used in a discussion where people are actually trying to persuade, rather than merely score poings.

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: DougR
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:26 PM

Wow, Beccy! Good job! I might even lay off Bobert for ahwile to give you a shot at him! Well done, I say! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: harvey andrews
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 05:28 PM

It was also reported in "The Independent" after the news of the two killings through torture by US forces that women soldiers were being used to kick male Moslem prisoners to humiliate them. These women will then come back to society someday.How sad can all this violence begetting violence get?

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: Hrothgar
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 09:19 PM

Who gets to select the people who are to be tortured?

Who selects the people who are going to do the torturing?

How do you train a torturer?

If somebody has been found guilty of a crime, should they be tortured? It's a bit late then.

If somebody has not been found guilty of a crime, should they be tortured?

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: DougR
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 11:25 PM

Harvey: "The Independent!" Wow! What's that?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: US torture
From: harvey andrews
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 03:50 PM

The Inependent is a British national newspaper unaffiliated to any particular party. It's a proper newspaper as opposed to the tabloid press and does not feature celebrities, female breasts etc. it is not owned by Rupert Murdoch as is the rest of the world. It has its own website you can visit.