Is Torture ever right??

[john smith]

I mean if you are trying to promote a way of life that the terrorist opposes (let's use western democracy vs religous fundamentalism) then you have to show that your ways are indeed superior. Torturing someone under the banner of democracy leaves you wide open to accusations of hypocrisy.

I see now, thanks for the explanation

I believe in the rule of law. Everyone deserves a fair trial.

Yes, i guess you (and the law ) is correct.

But i always question myself and put myself in certain situations, like the soldiers who found Saddam Huissein, i would have personnaly found it very difficult not to execute him immediatly upon finding him ( even though i know this would be the 'wrong' action to take), i would have (like everyone else) a background knowledge of some of the indescribable atrocites that he (Saddam) metted out.

I admit this would cloud all reasonable judgement (in my head), and i wolud probaly act accordingly. Do you see what i mean?

 

[c20H25N3o]

But i always question myself and put myself in certain situations, like the soldiers who found Saddam Huissein, i would have personnaly found it very difficult not to execute him immediatly upon finding him ( even though i know this would be the 'wrong' action to take), i would have (like everyone else) a background knowledge of some of the indescribable atrocites that he (Saddam) metted out.

I admit this would cloud all reasonable judgement (in my head), and i wolud probaly act accordingly. Do you see what i mean?

What you are battling with is 'rage'. But to yield to those feelings makes you no better than the murderers who act on their feelings of rage. The rule of law must be applied if you are promoting a society based upon the rule of law.

Better to lose your life defending the rule of law than to save your life by transgressing it. Who wants to live in a lawless society?

peace

c20

 

[Baron Max]

Better to lose your life defending the rule of law than to save your life by transgressing it. Who wants to live in a lawless society?

The problem with that is .....what is "the rule of law"? Laws are simply rules set down by a society by which that society should live. Different societies - different laws. And who is to say which of those laws/rules is the "correct" law/rule?

If the fundamentalist Muslim law is to decapitate any and all non-muslims, then even if you don't like that law, it's still THEIR law. Or are you then going to evoke some silly ideal about "human rights", etc? ...which is nothing more than more "laws/rules" made up by a bunch of people.

The "rule of law", huh? Is that just some fancy way of saying "Our way is the best way!"? ...adding, perhaps, "And if you don't do things our way, then we're going to arrest you and convict you and throw you in jail!"?

Baron Max

 

[c20H25N3o]

The problem with that is .....what is "the rule of law"? Laws are simply rules set down by a society by which that society should live. Different societies - different laws. And who is to say which of those laws/rules is the "correct" law/rule?

If the fundamentalist Muslim law is to decapitate any and all non-muslims, then even if you don't like that law, it's still THEIR law. Or are you then going to evoke some silly ideal about "human rights", etc? ...which is nothing more than more "laws/rules" made up by a bunch of people.

The "rule of law", huh? Is that just some fancy way of saying "Our way is the best way!"? ...adding, perhaps, "And if you don't do things our way, then we're going to arrest you and convict you and throw you in jail!"?

Baron Max

The point of the rule of law is to ensure that even the law-makers are subject to their own laws. It says nothing about how just the laws are admittedly, however the rule of law assumes innocence until proven otherwise. In other words you cannot exact punishment (torture) before guilt / innocence has been established in a court of law.

peace

c20

 

[Baron Max]

Again ......which "rule of law"? And .....which "court of law"?

Those words, terms sound all high n' mighty and wonderful, but in the real world, they seem to have much different meanings to different peoples/cultures.

You seem to assume that all human laws/rules are the same! Ditto for "courts of law"! And they ain't. If nothing else, consider the differences of Muslim law to others.

Baron Max

 

[c20H25N3o]

Again ......which "rule of law"? And .....which "court of law"?

Those words, terms sound all high n' mighty and wonderful, but in the real world, they seem to have much different meanings to different peoples/cultures.

You seem to assume that all human laws/rules are the same! Ditto for "courts of law"! And they ain't. If nothing else, consider the differences of Muslim law to others.

Baron Max

You are confusing 'the law' with the 'rule of law'.

 

[Baron Max]

You are confusing 'the law' with the 'rule of law'.

So please enlighten me? I'd appreciate it very much.

Baron Max

 

[john smith]

What you are battling with is 'rage'. But to yield to those feelings makes you no better than the murderers who act on their feelings of rage.

Your right, i guess/assume, that we all have this feeling of 'rage', the difference between the people who murder and the people who dont is that the people who dont are the ones that can control this rage, we are all so alike, yet so different because of this control.

The rule of law must be applied if you are promoting a society based upon the rule of law.

So this doent actually count ( in my 'Saddam' example), as in Iraq the society isnt based on the 'rule of law'.

Better to lose your life defending the rule of law than to save your life by transgressing it.

but do you truely believe this, i mean would you willingly give your life in defending this law?

Who wants to live in a lawless society?

Very true. And dont get me wrong, i do agree with your argument, i just wonder how far you would be willing to go in order to sustain this law.

 

[devils_reject]

Maclom X advocated militance and violent revolution.

Yes but it was so we could have peace and equality, sometimes you just can't neglect the rod and spoil your endevours.

Malcom was killed by a fellow Muslim and one of his own

According to whom? how certain are you? of cause thats what the media would like you to believe or would you have prefered a full scale socio-religious riot instead? Anyway it doesn't change the fact that some people hate peace loving ideas and individuals.

Nothing wrong with torturing people every now and then, it’s just like saying we should stop putting people in jails; jails are a form of torture too. So we might as well just kill instead of torturing the convicts? That wouldn’t be a bad idea either, I am always in favor of a healthier population, and also maybe a lot of people will decide to do the right thing except of cause the suicidal ones. But then criminals will really go on a rampage, crimes will become a lot more grandeur and horrific since it will then be an all or nothing gamble. This is when the real psychopaths of the community will start coming out of hiding. The 911 suicidal stunts is a picture perfect example. Nothing wrong with a little pain man, in fact some professionals like athletes go through pain like a hot knife through butter(okay sure they use pain killers). But I think we have come a long way in accomodating prefered torture techniques, at least compared to the good old medieval days of the axe men.

I guess this is more of a personal question, but do you think everyone should have rights to a fair trial, no matter how hienous their crimes are??

Yep but expeditiously, no need wasting tax payers resources and time on well known fact. Besides the time you waste on trials can be used in advantage by the convict's surbodinate, maybe like planning an attack?! Like the adage goes " all is fair in love and war". Fair trial? But since when has war and love been fair?