US torturers to go free

[paximperium]

You sure shot that messenger!

Now there's no more need to think about the issue.

No I actually do think about the issue. It isn't black and white or as simple as ignorant dufuses think it is.

Please do tell us what YOUR definition of torture is? Perhaps you'd like to discuss it?

 

[paximperium]

What's the hold-up, other than lack of political will? I don't think there's any lack of evidence that torture was sanctioned policy, for the definition of torture used by Amnesty International (as opposed to the definition cooked up by the Bush White House).

Why does anything Amnesty International define has any relevance to a nation?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I believe that "he said it was legal!" is not usually an effective legal defence against charges of rape, murder, torture and so forth. However they should have the option of running that line past a judge and jury to see what they think of it, just the same as a civilian who tortures someone.

The same goes for the "I was just following orders!" defence.

This is politics not law.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No I actually do think about the issue. It isn't black and white or as simple as ignorant dufuses think it is.

Please do tell us what YOUR definition of torture is? Perhaps you'd like to discuss it?

I disagree. I think it's morally black and white, despite what morally bankrupt apologists think.

My definition of torture would be something like intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person, whether physical or mental, usually for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him/her for an act s/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

Before you start in with the usual chestnut about terrorists that you think are going to set off a bomb, I'd say that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture with any moral legitimacy.

Why does anything Amnesty International define has any relevance to a nation?

Because they use the definitions set out in The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

This is politics not law.

I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here.

If you are claiming that different moral rules apply to torturing people if it's done for political reasons, then you're wrong and you're one of the morally bankrupt apologists I mentioned earlier.

If you're not, then you're going to have to contribute more than a random declaration of your opinion to the conversation because I have no idea what you mean.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate here.

If you are claiming that different moral rules apply to torturing people if it's done for political reasons, then you're wrong and you're one of the morally bankrupt apologists I mentioned earlier.

Decisions to prosecute are political decisions though. Here the decision was that it would not be worth it to prosecute. If there had been more political will to prosecute then there would be prosecutions. That was a benefit of destroying the visual evidence of their acts, reports do not generate the political will like video or photos do.

 

[paximperium]

My definition of torture would be something like intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person, whether physical or mental, usually for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him/her for an act s/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

That is a reasonable definition.

Before you start in with the usual chestnut about terrorists that you think are going to set off a bomb, I'd say that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture with any moral legitimacy.

Too bad. Because I have no issue with torturing individuals when it comes to saving lives when it comes to an impending and imminent threat.

I guess we have different priorities. I care more about saving the lives of people; you care about satiating your moral guilt.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That is a reasonable definition.
Too bad. Because I have no issue with torturing individuals when it comes to saving lives when it comes to an impending and imminent threat.

I guess we have different priorities. I care more about saving the lives of people; you care about satiating your moral guilt.

It's not just me.

The bit about "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" is a direct quote from The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Since the USA ratified that convention (in 1994 from memory), it's US law.

Now can you think of any reason why that clause might be in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? Other than the people who wrote it being, in your words, "ignorant dufuses" who only "care about satiating your moral guilt"? (Whatever that means).

 

[Praktik]

Does the USA now have any moral authority to ask any other country not to torture people?

I think this is an interesting question. Witness the coverage of the Iranian-American journalist locked up in Iran right now - what were the principal complaints about Iranian justice?

Lack of transparency (a closed trial), little to no opportunity to defend herself - now I'm just as upset about her jailing as anyone else with a moral compass. But as a non-american consuming American news about the defecits in the Iranian justice system I couldn't help but think there were aspects of detainee detention that matched her situation: no trials (except for a few high-profile cases - closed military tribunals for the rest if they even get that chance), evidence that can be provided to the court with no review by the defense, hearsay admitted as evidence.

I think that cleaning up these processes will result in a situation where legitimate American complaints about the problems of justice in foreign countries can be aired without the rest of us in the world thinking: "hypocrites".

EDIT: another similar thing happened when the Americans criticized Zimbabwe for "draconian" surveillance legislation they passed. Their response? "America does it too..."

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Luckily the "international community" has no power to persecute anyone within US soil.

Who said they did. I am more than happy to invite all the Usian tortureres to visit the EU and see if international law doesn't apply.

When you actually define "torture", perhaps people here will take your rants as being half sincere and not just another anti-american tirade.
Since the international court does not seem interested in pursuing this at all, you'll be looking forward to it for a very long time. Why aren't you angry at the Hague for not persecuting them?

As you are a torture supporter I guess you would say this wouldn't you? And you are still trying to identify Usians as torturers. Do you even begin to understand how much contempt you are showing ordinary decent Usians by doing this? I suspect you are too young to understand the implications of your own disrespect for human rights and trying to imply that all Usians feel the same as you.

Don't you understand that torture by any other name still stinks as much. The fact that lunatic right wingers in the USA have decided to rename tortuer makes not one ounce of difference to the true definition.

In your support for torture when it suits you you are showing total contempt for human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the USA has signed up to.

When is the USA going to make its mind up what is and isn't torture?

PS

You do know what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is don't you? Why are you so contemptuous of human rights?

I think we now know how much credence to give you when you demand anyone follows the law - namely absolutely none whatsoever. We also now know how much credence to give you when you call for anyone to respect human rights, namely none whatsoever.

You do realise that from now on when you call on anyone or any country to obey the law or respect human rights you will be rightly called an utter hypocrite?

Will you be as contemptuous of human rights when you are arrested and tortured or your future children are tortured. I suspect you will be just as hypocritical and suddenly realise why a respect for human rights are a minimum qualification to be called a decent state.

 

[Cainkane1]

'...President Barack Obama has also issued a statement guaranteeing that no CIA employees will be prosecuted for their role in the interrogation programme. ...'

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8003023.stm

Does the USA now have any moral authority to ask any other country not to torture people?

It depends on why they're being tortured. If the person being tortured has knowledge that can save a few thousand lives then torture them until they talk. The goons the CIA is torturing would not hesitate to do the same thing to their enemys so why not do the same thing to them? Waterboarding feels horrible but after the torture is over they are uninjured. Compare that to having your head slowly sawn off.

 

[paximperium]

It's not just me.

The bit about "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" is a direct quote from The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Since the USA ratified that convention (in 1994 from memory), it's US law.

You may need to read the clauses that the US inserted into the convention.

Now can you think of any reason why that clause might be in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? Other than the people who wrote it being, in your words, "ignorant dufuses" who only "care about satiating your moral guilt"? (Whatever that means).

Because it was written by a committee tasked for that sole purpose. They believe in what they wrote and I can say that they are wrong.

 

[paximperium]

Who said they did. I am more than happy to invite all the Usian tortureres to visit the EU and see if international law doesn't apply.

So far despite your fantasy; no, it does not apply even in the EU. Why don't you take it up with your EU and the Hague?

As you are a torture supporter I guess you would say this wouldn't you?

I'm not a torture supported so who are talking to?

And you are still trying to identify Usians as torturers. Do you even begin to understand how much contempt you are showing ordinary decent Usians by doing this? I suspect you are too young to understand the implications of your own disrespect for human rights and trying to imply that all Usians feel the same as you.

I speak for myself and myself only.

Sometimes there are reasons to torture. Those claiming that there is no times to do so are naive if not deluded. Your pathetic attempt to appeal to emotions is truly transparent and a tad bit funny, in a pathetic kind of way. I respect human rights especially people who are about to be killed by terrorist.

And oh yeah, it is Americans, making up your own words like Usians make you look mentally retarded.

Don't you understand that torture by any other name still stinks as much. The fact that lunatic right wingers in the USA have decided to rename tortuer makes not one ounce of difference to the true definition.

Define torture. Do you have a hard time defining it?

In your support for torture when it suits you you are showing total contempt for human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the USA has signed up to.

I don't support torture. You can keep claiming that but I've never once stated I support it. I believe it is rarely effective. However, I believe there are rare situations where it is definitely necessary especially when it comes to imminent life threats.

When is the USA going to make its mind up what is and isn't torture?

Read the guidelines. I believe it is spelled out there.

You do know what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is don't you?

Yup.

Why are you so contemptuous of human rights?

Why are you a pedophile? Why are you a supporter of mass murder?
Now that we're even with the loaded questions, I will simply state that absurd absolutes such as human rights are unrealistic and dangerous ESPECIALLY if following it will lead to the destructin of other innocent's human rights. Human rights should be striven for but there are exceptions to "human rights". The world is not black and white despite your claims.

You do realise that from now on when you call on anyone or any country to obey the law or respect human rights you will be rightly called an utter hypocrite?

Sure, why not? Your ad hominems are not exactly new either.

Human rights should be respected and Laws should be followed for good reasons. Following laws or "human right" to the detriment of human lives and the human rights of others is BS. I'm assuming you'll follow the law even if it kills a million citizens? What about their human rights?

Would you torture one to save a million? I would.

Will you be as contemptuous of human rights when you are arrested and tortured or your future children are tortured. I suspect you will be just as hypocritical and suddenly realise why a respect for human rights are a minimum qualification to be called a decent state.

Thanks for showing what sort of monster you really are. Your threats and emotional appeals are noted as to the vile person you really are.

I respect human rights. I especially respect the humans rights of innocents who are about to be killed by terrorists. Human rights is not an absolute unbreakable law. Human rights are not there to prevent people from saving others. It should be broken to save the lives of the many and the innocent.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Actually, the CIA handed the detainees over to the authorities in the countries they were shipped to. For the very reason so our guys wouldn't be directly involved.

I notice that once again you make an assertion with absolutely no evidence to support it. How do you know this? My guess is that you just made this up.

Don't you understand that arranging for torture by proxy in secret gulags makes 'your guys' just as guilty? You do realise that Hitler was guilty of the Holocaust even though he probably didn't kill a single person himself. You don't seem to understand the total nonsense that is the argument you appear to be making. How does that argument apply to Al Quaeda for example? Are you seriously trying to claim that OBL cannot be held to account because he didn't fly on the aircraft?

Also, those people were incareated because they were not subject to normal US laws.

Just because you chose to sideline your own legal process doesn't mean you can get away with it. If the Guantanamo concentration camp was such a shining beacon of lawfulness why is your country now going to shut it down? And were the people incarcerated in the Polish concentration camps also not subject to German law?

See above. We can't close what isn't ours.

Really? When Hitler ordered the Holocaust in Poland, amongst other countries, funnily enough he was still responsible for the Holocaust. Your country can't go around the world blaming Hitler for organising human rights abuses then seek to do the opposite when it organises human rights abuses for itself. Trying to wriggle your way out of responsibility for your own actions is a very cowardly argument.

Does this mean that you are not very proud of the US torture programme. You seem somewhat ashamed of your country torturing people in contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Why is that?

which countries?

I suggest you read this link but I suspect you just don't want to know the truth.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ng-secret-gulag-in-eastern-europe-513692.html

And the US was very careful how it defines things.

So was Hitler but strangely the US still thought he was guilty. Do you understand why that was?

You know, it doesn't say much for you when you act like a keyboard commando with another country's security. I don't think the Dutch would be too happy with you daring the USN to send a carrier group into their ports.

Do you seriously imagine the Dutch or any country in the EU gives a fig about US threats to invade the Hague? That is because the USA would not dare to invade the Hague in support of possible human rights abusers. The threats are nothing but the posturing of a bully.

Besides, the ICC is a joke. The members don't even recognize its authority.

Do you really think the ICC cares?

And since the US has not signed the Rome Statute, why do we give a damn what it says?

The feel free to plough your own furrow. The rest of the decent democratic world will simply press ahead regardless. We don't actually need to sit around waiting for the US to decide whether torture is torture or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Today's Tuesday so torture must be torture or was that last week? Sheesh.

This is also a multinational issue. Several countries, including prominent members of the ICC, participated.

And several countries participated with Germany during the second world war. That made absolutely no difference when they were called to account by the USA amongst other countries when the war was over. Your attempts to wriggle out of your actual behaviour will not work. Your human rights abusers will be brought to trial. The sooner the better.

PS
When will the USA stop flip flopping on the definition of the word torture? One day it is, another day it isn't. You put one leg in, then one leg out, one leg in, then shake it all about. Oi vey.

Yak shamash.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

If you read the words of mine that you quoted, you'll see that I said the same exact thing as your 'point 1'.

If you read your own post you will see that you didn't.

And are you actually insinuating that we didn't get the, "Rose by any other name," reference? For serious? It is really sad that you need to make yourself feel better by imagining that we didn't get it.

If you say you got it then I'm sure that you got it. Hurrah. Good for you.

It wasn't your joke, it was the fact that we all understood what you meant but were picking on you for it that I was explaining to you. You're welcome.

Picking on me? Surely not. That's something you have never done before. I wonder how I missed it. Thanks for explaining to me what you were doing to me. I would never have guessed if I didn't have your help. Thanks yet again for showing the world so clearly what you are up to and for making my point so eloquently.

A very famous play write might have once said, "An EJ by any other name sounds just as inane." See, that's how you do it, it even has a slant rhyme.

Hey, that's original. Did you think up the idea of paraphrasing a famous playwright yourself or did you steal the idea from someone else?

Perhaps you can the world know how personal abuse makes up for your inability to present a rational argument. We're all ears.

Yak shamash.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

I think this is an interesting question. Witness the coverage of the Iranian-American journalist locked up in Iran right now - what were the principal complaints about Iranian justice?

Lack of transparency (a closed trial), little to no opportunity to defend herself - now I'm just as upset about her jailing as anyone else with a moral compass. But as a non-american consuming American news about the defecits in the Iranian justice system I couldn't help but think there were aspects of detainee detention that matched her situation: no trials (except for a few high-profile cases - closed military tribunals for the rest if they even get that chance), evidence that can be provided to the court with no review by the defense, hearsay admitted as evidence.

I think that cleaning up these processes will result in a situation where legitimate American complaints about the problems of justice in foreign countries can be aired without the rest of us in the world thinking: "hypocrites".

EDIT: another similar thing happened when the Americans criticized Zimbabwe for "draconian" surveillance legislation they passed. Their response? "America does it too..."

This is the crux of the matter. To much of the rest of the world US posturing about 'human rights' and 'obeying the law' now rings completely hollow and is now often taken with a complete pinch of salt.

I think Obama has got that message but he seems he is too hidebound by US politics to act honourably. Unfortunately it seems that many of the right wing apologists for torture on this thread have yet to get the message no matter how often they are lead to the well.

I look forwards to the time when the USA has followed the law consistently over an extended period and shown that it does respect human rights however difficult it is. Until then a decent country would be a little more considerate about demanding other countries do what it would not in the recent past.

 

[Gangularis]

Try this on for size, if you think that "moral authority" and a dollar gets you anything more than a cup of coffee when you also have a coupon.

Numerous non Americans disliked America before the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo deals went down.

Numberous non Americans dislike America since Abu Ghraib and Gitmo deals went down.

What's the big deal? All that is sought is an excuse. This latest jag is excuse du jour. There will be another next year ...

DR

Ah yes, because numerous non-americans disliked us before those things, it's obvious those things did nothing to hurt our reputation and further sour the quelling anti-americanism.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

It depends on why they're being tortured. If the person being tortured has knowledge that can save a few thousand lives then torture them until they talk. The goons the CIA is torturing would not hesitate to do the same thing to their enemys so why not do the same thing to them? Waterboarding feels horrible but after the torture is over they are uninjured. Compare that to having your head slowly sawn off.

Unfortunately for all the supporters of torture the USA has actually signed up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is totally, unambiguously against torture, as is international law.

That is why the USA is widely laughed at when it demands other countries obey the law and respect human rights. It has no credibility in the area of human rights at present because of its recent behaviour. Electing a new president hasn't suddenly erased the recent past. The USA needs to show it respects human rights and the law for some considerable time before it will be taken seriously in these areas again.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

So far despite your fantasy; no, it does not apply even in the EU. Why don't you take it up with your EU and the Hague?

I am more than happy to do so. Please send your torturers over to the EU. We will deal with them even if you won't.
[/QUOTE]I'm not a torture supported so who are talking to?[/QUOTE] Lying again I see. You are a torture supporter and as such anti-human rights. You have read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, hacen't you. It appears not.

Let me remind you exactly what you stated in public andI quote
'Because I have no issue with torturing individuals when it comes to saving lives when it comes to an impending and imminent threat. ' There we have a completely unambiguous support for torture when it suits you. You have publicly stated your support for torture. Why are you trying to claim you didn't. More flip flopping like your government. Today its Tuesday so you must be for or against torture - who knows. Try and make your mind up torture supporter.

Sometimes there are reasons to torture. Those claiming that there is no times to do so are naive if not deluded. Your pathetic attempt to appeal to emotions is truly transparent and a tad bit funny, in a pathetic kind of way. I respect human rights especially people who are about to be killed by terrorist.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law, both of which the USA has signed up to is completely and unambiguously against torture. You support torture when it suits you. As such you are showing a deep contempt for human rights and the law.

A

nd oh yeah, it is Americans, making up your own words like Usians make you look mentally retarded.

Au contraier. It is not Americans. That word covers many more people than those who live in the USA. That you have the arrogance to use a collective noun that does not actually apply to you makes my case for me. When you learn to make a rationalargument instead of personal abuse you might begin to be taken seriously. Until then...

Define torture. Do you have a hard time defining it?
I don't support torture. You can keep claiming that but I've never once stated I support it. I believe it is rarely effective. However, I believe there are rare situations where it is definitely necessary especially when it comes to imminent life threats.

You are lying again. You have repeatedly indicated a support torture when it suits youas you have just done here yet again. as a torture supporter when it suits you you can never be taken seriously again when you demand other people respect human rights. You have read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights haven't you. It doesn't look like it yet.
Read the guidelines. I believe it is spelled out there.

Why are you a pedophile? Why are you a supporter of mass murder?

Sad really. The difference is that you have repeatedly indicated a support for torture when it suits you. See a number of examples above.

Now that we're even with the loaded questions, I will simply state that absurd absolutes such as human rights are unrealistic and dangerous ESPECIALLY if following it will lead to the destructin of other innocent's human rights. Human rights should be striven for but there are exceptions to "human rights". The world is not black and white despite your claims.

yes the world now knows that you are a supporter of torture when it suits you. Unfortunately for you the USA has signed up to a number of agreements that state torture is always wrong. Have you read the Universal SDeclaration of Human Rights yet? It doesn't look like it.

Human rights should be respected and Laws should be followed for good reasons. Following laws or "human right" to the detriment of human lives and the human rights of others is BS. I'm assuming you'll follow the law even if it kills a million citizens? What about their human rights?

You either respect the law or you don't. You don't as you support torture when it suits you.

Would you torture one to save a million? I would.

Still wallowing in fantasy I see. Yes we all know now that despite all the laws the US has signed up to you are a torture supporter when it suits you. You now cannot be taken seriously when you talk about respecting human rights as you will abuse them whenever it suits you and you have demonstrated a complete contempt for human rights.

Thanks for showing what sort of monster you really are. Your threats and emotional appeals are noted as to the vile person you really are.

I am against torture, you support torture when it suits you and I am the vile person? Y
Really. How does that work? I support the rule of law and you don't and I am the vile person. Really? How does that work again?

I respect human rights.

You quite clearly do not support human rights as demonstrated beyond doubt by your repeated support for torture when it suits you as repeatedly indicated on this thread. Such as when you stated again and again: -

"...Sometimes there are reasons to torture. ..."
"...However, I believe there are rare situations where it is definitely necessary especially when it comes to imminent life threats. ..."
"...Would you torture one to save a million? I would. ..."
"...Because I have no issue with torturing individuals when it comes to saving lives when it comes to an impending and imminent threat. ..."

You support for torture when it suits you is manifest and repeatedly stated on a public forum.

I especially respect the humans rights of innocents who are about to be killed by terrorists. Human rights is not an absolute unbreakable law. Human rights are not there to prevent people from saving others. It should be broken to save the lives of the many and the innocent.

You clearly do not respect human rights as you have demonstrated repeatedly. See above for many of your statements in support of torture when it suits you. And there you demonstrate your contempt for the Universal Declaration of HUman Rights and the international agreements the US has signed in this area.

We all know now that you are contemptuous of basic human rights when it suits you and believe that the law can be broken when you want to break the law. You have now made this extremely clear.

 

[paximperium]

Well since EJ has decided to go on his rant and now in his mudslinging phase and is claiming things I don't believe it is rather sad to see him drool with glee at his "gotcha" moment. Unfortunately he is currently in his "abuse abuse, pip pip" brainless mode.

Shrug. To set things straight, I don't believe torture is all that use or even that effective. However, I believe there are rare occasions where it may be necessary to save the lives on innocents. In these situations, which should be exceedingly rare, torture may be the only valid way to get the information required. Any use of such a "tactic" should be properly vetted through legal, public and through appropriateness systems. I may even require that the President of the United States approve these rare events and bear responsibility for their outcomes.

EJ can keep claiming whetever he wants, just like he misquotes his news articles to support his nonsense, I have little doubt he will keep ranting about what I believe and keep claiming that I support torture or hate human rights.

 

[tyr_13]

Well since EJ has decided to go on his rant and now in his mudslinging phase and is claiming things I don't believe it is rather sad to see him drool with glee at his "gotcha" moment. Unfortunately he is currently in his "abuse abuse, pip pip" brainless mode.

Shrug. To set things straight, I don't believe torture is all that use or even that effective. However, I believe there are rare occasions where it may be necessary to save the lives on innocents. In these situations, which should be exceedingly rare, torture may be the only valid way to get the information required. Any use of such a "tactic" should be properly vetted through legal, public and through appropriateness systems. I may even require that the President of the United States approve these rare events and bear responsibility for their outcomes.

EJ can keep claiming whetever he wants, just like he misquotes his news articles to support his nonsense, I have little doubt he will keep ranting about what I believe and keep claiming that I support torture or hate human rights.

I agree with most of this, but would just like to point out that, in these cases, torture was not warranted or useful.

Oh, and I just don't see the point in continuing to be derailed by EJ not being able to read, so I won't be addressing the silly 'play write' thing.