Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Beating is a form of torture, and your argument is that torture is ALWAYS morally wrong. so yes, it is relevant.
Beating isn't a form of torture. Torture is a situation where something is demanded from the person being tortured, and the torture will stop when the person being tortured supplies that demand. While beating may sometimes be a means of torture, it is not torture in and of itself. It wasn't torture in this case. In this case the beating was revenge.
Beating isn't a form of torture. Torture is a situation where something is demanded from the person being tortured, and the torture will stop when the person being tortured supplies that demand. While beating may sometimes be a means of torture, it is not torture in and of itself. It wasn't torture in this case. In this case the beating was revenge.
If beating is not a form of torture, Let's just beat the crap out of the detainees. Is it okay with you?
If what they are saying is what they really believe, I have to admit that I am not one of them. I am not a mother yet, I am an aunt. If my nephew got abducted by somebody. And they knew exactly who committed crime.
Again, you're assuming too much information. How can you know exactly who committed the crime if you do not have the abductee (who is the primary witness and likely the only witness able to state without a doubt that the person is indeed who abducted them) or the abductees body with physical evidence that ties the abductor to the abductee in the place and at the time of the abductees death? Even if the person you think committed that crime confessed, you still do not know, because people confess all kinds of stuff all the time under un-enhanced interrogation that they're completely innocent of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
I really DO NOT care what my government does to bring my nephew back to me.
Really, you don't care if you get your kneecaps shot off? You're a friend or acquaintance, in 44% of child abductions this group is responsible for abductions. You also don't care if the abductor gets complete immunity, a $10M tax free lump sum, $1M/year tax free government stipend and a new identity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
Moral Civilization Is Not A Suicide Pact . It is an ugly world and if a serious threat is imminent and torture is the only way to stop evil men then so be it.
Of course Moral Civilization is a suicide pact. The whole country was founded on a suicide pact, every signatory of the Declaration of Independence knew that they'd either fight and gain sovereignty from the British Empire, or be hanged for treason. They were defining their own civilization at the risk of their own lives to create what has become the United States of America by being treasonous and probably were considered terrorists. There were only two outcomes for those signatories. That's called being principled, and it's what defines whether a civilization is principled or unprincipled.
I prefer to use principled or unprincipled to moral or immoral as moral is a judgement. A principle is a whole or part of a statement of intent that under all circumstances you will act in accordance with, and subsequent actions taken support that statement. For instance stating that anyone who trespasses on your property will be shot is a principle, and someone who is principled after making that statement would shoot anyone trespassing, it would be considered immoral by most people, but it's not unprincipled. Unprincipled would be making that statement and not shooting someone who trespassed, which would be considered moral by most people, but it is unprincipled.
Another example of being unprincipled is signing the UN Convention against Torture, and Other Cruel and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment and then not acting in accordance with it. If you don't think you want it or need it, then you can repeal it, don't leave it lying around and ignore it because it's inconvenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
No, torturing suspects is not justified, because suspects are not terrorists, Everybody is innocent until proven guilty. So in this particular case, torture is not justified.
But you said above that
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
I really DO NOT care what my government does to bring my nephew back to me.
Therefore by inference I can only assume that torturing a suspect who may have abducted your nephew is in your mind justified.
However not to quibble on your inconsistency.
A suspect is someone who has at most sufficient evidence to charge with a crime, until they are convicted of that crime by a court, or military tribunal (in cases of war crimes, or violations of the UCMJ) they are assumed to be innocent. Even in your opening statement if we knew without any doubt that a person was responsible for abducting someone's child until they have been convicted of that crime they are not guilty by law, they are assumed innocent. Once they have been convicted they have protection against cruel and unusual punishments at minimum under the 8th Amendment. Until they are convicted the protections are provided by the 5th Amendment in cases of criminal law (which may or may not extend to UCMJ and Military tribunals depending on the circumstance).
The above is part of what's known as "Rule of Law", the law is available to all, it's all codified. You know what the government can do and cannot do, and what you cannot do (and thus know if you're not prohibited from doing something you can do it). The government cannot under national or international law perform torture against anyone under their jurisdiction, nor can they allow any person to be transferred to a country that they suspect may perform torture of that person. If the government is not held accountable to being bound by that law, then why should they be bound by law at all? Why should they not set aside any law that happens to be inconvenient at the time?
How do I know that torture is illegal under US law? Simple March 20th 1983 San Jacinto Sheriff James C Parker convicted of extortion and civil right violations for performing water torture (waterboarding in modern parlance) on jail inmates to obtain convictions and testimony. Look it up, Google is your friend.
Suspects are not always terrorists, but most "terrorists" are actually suspects. Timothy McVeigh is a convicted terrorist, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a suspected terrorist, he has never been convicted or brought to trial on terror charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
I can accept this. However, this is an interesting read,
"Even if a country bans torture, how should it treat information that others have extracted this way? In 2004 Britain's Court of Appeal ruled that information acquired through torture was admissible as evidence in court. David Blunkett, then Britain's home secretary, welcomed the ruling. Although the government “unreservedly†condemned torture, he said, it would be “irresponsible not to take appropriate account of any information which could help protect national security and public safety.â€But the ruling was later overturned by the House of Lords."
House of Lords overturned an appeal court ruling that information obtained by torture was admissible. That makes it inadmissible as evidence in British Courts. This supports the UK's official position on Torture it's held since 1978. Whether they're actually holding that position, or officially holding that position is open to debate, that said they're not currently officially not holding that position.
Again, you're assuming too much information. How can you know exactly who committed the crime if you do not have the abductee (who is the primary witness and likely the only witness able to state without a doubt that the person is indeed who abducted them) or the abductees body with physical evidence that ties the abductor to the abductee in the place and at the time of the abductees death? Even if the person you think committed that crime confessed, you still do not know, because people confess all kinds of stuff all the time under un-enhanced interrogation that they're completely innocent of..
i don't know why do you always come back and ask the same question over and over.
I have made myself VERY clear, I do NOT support torturing INNOCENT civilians, I don't even support torturing suspects. You are right, Most of the detainees are not terrorists, and torturing them is both morally and legally wrong.
However, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a well known mastermind of 911. Torturing him to get information is justified and morally obligated.
i don't know why do you always come back and ask the same question over and over.
I have made myself VERY clear, I do NOT support torture INNOCENT civilians, I don't even support torturing suspects. You are right, Most of the detainees are not terrorists, and torturing them is both morally and legally wrong.
However, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a well known mastermind of 911. Torturing him to get information is justified and morally obligated.
There is never any moral obligation to torture someone. NEVER.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
