| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Use of torture by USA | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 3 2004, 11:59 PM (295 Views) | |
| somerled | Dec 3 2004, 11:59 PM Post #1 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
US allows use of evidence gained by torture
Disturbing. But not surprising with Bush and Rumsfeld in power. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 4 2004, 12:20 AM Post #2 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Because of the way your poll was worded, I couldn't answer it. Certainly I would not support the use of torture to gain information for prosecution. However, the article you posted isn't discussing that. It is discussing the use of information gained by torture committed by others. It doesn't, however, define torture. Given that some of the same groups refuse to characterize people who murder children as terrorists, should we trust their definition of torture? Do I think information a female interogator gains from asking a man questions should be used in prosecution? Absolutely, because I do not define a woman asking a man questions as torture. However, some groups have done just that. Therefore, without a common or universal definition of the word torture, it is impossible to respond to a question as to whether information gained through the use of the undefined word torture should be allowed. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Dec 4 2004, 12:46 AM Post #3 |
|
Time to put something here
|
^^^^^^^ Could not put it better my self. somerled I think you aught to head the wisdom I gave you last night and not allow your unmistakable infallible ridged interpretations of the world cloud your judgment. Did you mistakenly on purpose forget to put “other” in this poll as well? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Dec 4 2004, 01:11 AM Post #4 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
^^^ Perhaps a moderator or administration could rephrase this poll to better reflect the article? Addendum: Link: SisterTrek Topic: "How Far is Too Far?" In the above cited link there is another link to the PBS program "Uncommon Knowledge" in which this type of hypothetical discussion takes place. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 4 2004, 01:16 AM Post #5 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
For Swidden |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Dec 4 2004, 01:18 AM Post #6 |
|
Time to put something here
|
The community has decided against such action. (disclaimer, this does not mean the Admin will not change polls as it sees fight, just that this particular poll is benign enough to allow the ability to listen to the community on this matter) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Dec 4 2004, 01:40 AM Post #7 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
I refrained from editorialising the poll. My views are well enough known on this anyway - even if some here disagree with my views. The fact is that torture has been used (and I wont define torture - we all know what it is and those who don't can easily find out for themselves), and a discussion of the definition of torture has been done here already anyway. Also any fresh discussion (as a tangent to this thread) would only act as distraction for the appologists or hardliners who support this abhorent process. Also it matters not the mechanism for applying torture - outsourced or by directly by the USA or her representatives. The fact is that the Bush administration wants evidence obtained under torture to be admissible despite long standing conventions and laws. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Dec 4 2004, 02:09 AM Post #8 |
|
Time to put something here
|
As Wichita has explained nicely the world torture is subjective, with out the bases of what is considering torture in the article (or in your poll), it means nothing. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Dec 4 2004, 06:46 AM Post #9 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Sure it's a subjective word , and has very emotive connotations. However - we have all been following developments and we all know the kinds of things we are talking about when torture , especially outsourced torture , is mentioned , so for some of us to claim they don't is nonsense. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Dec 4 2004, 07:31 AM Post #10 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Since you were so pleasant in your response to me, Somerled ... :rolleyes: The example I used - a man being questioned by a woman constitutes torture - is a real one from lists of examples of "torture". (sarcasm on) So, based on your comments, I see that you agree that a woman having a job that involves guarding, questioning or even being visible to a man being questioned about his activities constitutes torture. Basically you believe that women should be forbidden to have any job than involves her having any control whatsoever over a man because he would be "tortured" by the experience. In fact, you probably agree than women should not be permitted to be around men unless they are covered from head to toe by fabric, should not be permitted to drive, and should not be permitted to be seen in public unless accompanied by their husband (permitted to beat her at will) or brothers (permitted to kill her if she threatens the family honor). Fond of this as well? (/sarcasm off) As I recall, the even the British has been accused of some pretty evil activity in terms of how they have treated prisoners in the relatively recent past. For months some people have demanded that the US cooperate MORE with countries to gain information and make the war on terror more like a police investigation and have been damming them pretty hard for not doing so. Now you want us to inverstigate and evaluate the processes of every country in the world and only use the information provided by those countries who will use methods that do not include "torture" - when they include in the definition of "torture", among other things" allowing women to guard or question the prisoner? Yeah, that will work :rolleyes: The first time the US questions the methods used by another country to gather information we will be again accused of interfering with their sovereignty and of wanting to invade them or something. Even the UN kept a man on payroll who was accused of personally committing genocide in Rwanda and others who have sexually assaulted people under their care. Should we trust the methods of the French who recently fired on crowds in the Ivory Coast - on TWO different occasions? Tell me which countries employ only methods that never make anyone's lists of what constitutes "torture". Save us some all time. BTW, my guess is that Australia would not qualify based on the lists that I have seen. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Dec 4 2004, 08:00 AM Post #11 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Where (and when) did I say or infer the above ?
Yes they have and that is a separate issue and a distraction. Who is claiming the moral high ground , places like Egypt, etc , surely not , but it is the USA who frequently claims the high ground , and who claims they are justified , yet still want to engage in this repugnant means of extracting information , confessions and admissions of guilt ? Surely you are not trying to downplay the significance of applying techniques that have been outlawed and if they were carried against a group of Americans would be regarded as a war crime (very loudly) by the very same administration who has used it and wants information gathered by it to be acceptable. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 4 2004, 09:58 AM Post #12 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Define "torture" for me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Dec 4 2004, 11:19 AM Post #13 |
|
Admiral
|
I voted "no". While I agree that torture needs to be defined, I also believe that once a reasonable effort was put forth to do so, it would inevitably include things that I would not agree should be allowed. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Dec 4 2004, 12:51 PM Post #14 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Of course I agree with this statement, but I will wait until the definition is given before I vote. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Dec 4 2004, 10:40 PM Post #15 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Might not be an issue that is considered serious of news worthy in the USA , but it is here. Labor accuses Govt of condoning torture
The brits objected, as did other allies. But Howard has chosen not to object. I am curious - is this matter being discussed in US media ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2



3:19 AM Jul 11