The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

What's your position on torture

  • Never, under any circumstances

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Never, with exceptions of direst nature

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • Allowed, but never accepted publicly.

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Allowed in the name of national security

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • Total voters
    7
Gonz said:
Of course, we do need to define & distinguish the term "torture". There are levels that are unacceptable.

Even that statement is called into question, given the right circumstances.
Say you catch the guy who has raped & mutilated your 8 year old niece. He has her buried somewhere & she'll die of suffocation if you don't save her. Ask nicely or rip his scrotum off?
Click to expand...

Torture is already defined by the Geneva Conventions and War Crimes Act (1996). The argument of the hidden bomb, or eight year old niece are great sound bites but unrealistic. The entire question boils down to what is legal and what is not legal. Torture is not legal. Therefore, those who authorize the use of torture should be investigated, indicted and tried by a court of law. It doesn't matter who did what for what reason, if they broke the law they must understand from the first breath, there is the possibility of serious consequences. Otherwise the laws and international treaties mean othing and a law abiding society begins to crumble.
 
Frank Probity said:
Torture is already defined by the Geneva Conventions and War Crimes Act (1996). The argument of the hidden bomb, or eight year old niece are great sound bites but unrealistic. The entire question boils down to what is legal and what is not legal. Torture is not legal. Therefore, those who authorize the use of torture should be investigated, indicted and tried by a court of law. It doesn't matter who did what for what reason, if they broke the law they must understand from the first breath, there is the possibility of serious consequences. Otherwise the laws and international treaties mean othing and a law abiding society begins to crumble.
Click to expand...

how far back do you want to prosecute?
 
I voted Never, with exceptions of direst nature.

I guess torture would be acceptable only if the consequences of not doing so affect the safety of others. Of course that in order to proceed to torture a person, there must exist verifiable proof that the person is involved and the information provided will help to solve the situation in question.
 
My guess is them boys that got irregular rendition
and ended up in Egypt or in a former eastern bloc country
would have killed for the chance to be in club Gitmo instead.
Hell yeah outsource/offshore that Shitte!
 
I say we make the best decision for Our country.
That's what the gov is for partially.

Nancy needs to realize that, and grow some balls, instead of lying, or get out.
 
.

(D) the term “serious physical pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) as meaning bodily injury that involves—
(i) a substantial risk of death;
(ii) extreme physical pain;
(iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or
(iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
Click to expand...
 
That is what I'm saying, Homey. By those accurate standards, WE don't torture!
The whole thing is simply the typical actions of the treasonable Lib-tards!
Properly done waterboarding doesn’t fall into the category of torture.
Great now we have carte blanche to really rough them guys up!
 
Winky said:
That is what I'm saying, Homey. By those accurate standards, WE don't torture!
The whole thing is simply the typical actions of the treasonable Lib-tards!
Properly done waterboarding doesn’t fall into the category of torture.
Great now we have carte blanche to really rough them guys up!
Click to expand...
The Body dissagrees with you
Jese Ventura said:
Ventura said that there is no question that waterboarding is torture and that everyone involved with it at every level in the Bush administration should be prosecuted. And Ventura should know whether waterboarding is torture or not, because he experienced it first hand at Survival Escape Resistance Evasion school or SERE, which was required for all Navy Seals before entering into combat during the Vietnam War.


Ventura described his waterboarding experience as one of torture that subjected him to the real life terror of drowning; saying if done incorrectly subjects can swallow their tongue and die. He called Dick Cheney a coward who refused to serve in the military by requesting five deferments to escape serving in the Vietnam War.


The very man who never served in the military is now a “chicken hawk,” who sanctioned torture and called it enhanced interrogation, said Ventura.
Click to expand...
The Body Speaks
 
MrBishop said:
I think that we're above dishonouring the dead, in the same way as we treat wounded enemies on a field of battle. How far would you have us stoop?
Click to expand...
Since I do not believe in a life after death I do not see a problem with what Jim proposed (pig heart and all). They do... and many here do... so I suppose this boils down to your personal beliefs and what religion you might follow.
 
I suppose that the images of American G.I.s bodies being dragged through the streets of Baghdad don't disturb you, then?

...well then, by all means, let's go whole hog. Take the Gitmo people and drop them out of a moving airplane onto the villages that spawned them

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE <SPLAT!>

That'll learn'em!
 
MrBishop said:
I suppose that the images of American G.I.s bodies being dragged through the streets of Baghdad don't disturb you, then?

...well then, by all means, let's go whole hog. Take the Gitmo people and drop them out of a moving airplane onto the villages that spawned them

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE <SPLAT!>

That'll learn'em!
Click to expand...
There's a difference between a clean kill and torturing to death. What happens to the body I don't care about.
 
MrBishop said:
I think that we're above dishonouring the dead, in the same way as we treat wounded enemies on a field of battle. How far would you have us stoop?
Click to expand...

The purpose of these homicide bombers is to kill the enemy and get themselves into Heaven to sit on the right hand of Allah with their 72 virgins. If they know that their remains will be desecrated in such a way as to make them unacceptable for entry into Heaven, and an abomination to Allah, they would be far less inclined to blow themselves up.
 
jimpeel said:
The purpose of these homicide bombers is to kill the enemy and get themselves into Heaven to sit on the right hand of Allah with their 72 virgins. If they know that their remains will be desecrated in such a way as to make them unacceptable for entry into Heaven, and an abomination to Allah, they would be far less inclined to blow themselves up.
Click to expand...
It's bad to eat pork...but they wouldn't be eating pork anyway.

Not that I seriously think that they actually get their 72 virgins etc... but they're certainly brainwashed into thinking so. Who's to say that they can't be brainwashed into thiking that this not only does not affect their martyrdom, but is a far better reason to continue on their path?

"Look what the American devils are doing to our martyr's bodies..they must be stopped!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top