Yep.
Would Torturing Zubeida be Justified
- Thread starter goofyfish
- Start date
Then why not do that?
Still, the ethical question remains. Would you torture someone to save the lives of many.
Unquestionably yes. I'm glad I have the ability to look at things more logically.
Like I said, it's a choice:
(a) you torture one man who is a terrorist
(b) you let hundreds/thousands of innocent civilians die
Which would you rather have? That's all it should come down to.
Which is the better option?
How about this (to asgaurd, goofy, barney) - We'll not torture the person, won't get the info and then your loved one will die. If you're spouse, loved-one, family memeber... died, would you still say; we did the right thing? Would you still feel glad in your choice?
Still, the ethical question remains. Would you torture someone to save the lives of many.
Unquestionably yes. I'm glad I have the ability to look at things more logically.
Like I said, it's a choice:
(a) you torture one man who is a terrorist
(b) you let hundreds/thousands of innocent civilians die
Which would you rather have? That's all it should come down to.
Which is the better option?
How about this (to asgaurd, goofy, barney) - We'll not torture the person, won't get the info and then your loved one will die. If you're spouse, loved-one, family memeber... died, would you still say; we did the right thing? Would you still feel glad in your choice?
A suspected terrorist is walking down the street and asks a stranger for directions. It is a somewhat complicated destination, and several minutes pass. Law enforcement officials monitoring the suspect's movements take note. Later in the week the suspect, and all of those he spoke with are swept into custody because of some "credible threat" to our nation's security.
How about this (to Tyler) - We'll torture the person. If it were your spouse, loved-one, family member, would you still say we did the right thing? Would you still feel comfortable with your choice?
Peace.
See now goofy, that's changing my view on the situation. We never got into this but torture is something that should only be done under incredibly justifiable situations. Such as a KNOWN terrorist. Soemone who we can prove, under law, has played a part in a terrorist act.
My spouse, friend.... whatever, would not be a convicted criminal, now would they?
And Asgaurd - It's wrong off the bat. Torture is wrong, period. But like I said, I would rather sacrifice my ethics to save the thousands of lives than kill the thousands of innocent people.
My spouse, friend.... whatever, would not be a convicted criminal, now would they?
And Asgaurd - It's wrong off the bat. Torture is wrong, period. But like I said, I would rather sacrifice my ethics to save the thousands of lives than kill the thousands of innocent people.
To phrase the question thus: Under what circumstances should the United States torture a suspect, or actively endorse or promote the torture of a suspect by a non-American party?
The answer is simply: Absolutely never.
First, to address Barney TRubble's point:
It's hardly an answer, but it does lend some interesting light to Goofyfish's POW or Unlawful Combatants topic. My own contribution to that topic (2.4.2002) includes a citation of an article discussing the nature of POW's. The Independent's article in the topic post notes:
As a criminal defendant in the United States, Walker is entitled to certain rights which are not being respected. Bush's UC label is his apparent justification for circumvention of the United States Constitution. This is unacceptable. We'll get to that, though, in the broader context. In the case of Zubeida, the UC label does not excuse the United States from its human rights conventions. As the article I citedº in the POW/UC topic notes:
• The Washington Post quotes an unnamed administration official making the same point: “We already know the end point, which is they’re not POWs.... Now the question is, why are they not POWs.”
• Both the US and Afghanistan are signatories to the 1949 treaty. The Bush administration declared a “war on terrorism,” and went to war against Afghanistan, publicly stating that the ousting of the Taliban regime was its objective. The US initiated bombing raids and dispatched ground troops. But when enemy fighters are captured, including Taliban, the government claims they are not prisoners of war and their treatment is not governed by international law.
• Even if the US wants to claim that they are not POWs because the US never formally declared war, this doesn’t pass muster, as the Geneva Convention does not require that both parties recognize a state of war.
• Article 5 of the Geneva Convention states: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
• In other words, it is not up to the US to dictate who is a POW and who is not. Furthermore, until their status is determined, they must be provided with all the protections of a prisoner of war. All those detained have the right to refuse to provide any information aside from name, rank and serial number. Whether or not they are determined by a tribunal at a later time to be terrorists, or defendants to be tried for war crimes, can have no bearing on their treatment upon capture.
I, too, read carefully when an article is citing the opinion of any former status. But the United States government has gone to some effort to create a situation in which they are excused both from the Constitutional law that Bush has sworn to uphold and defend, and also the international law to which the United States is already obligated. The simple fact is that the Bush administration, while it wants to be portrayed as being promoters and defenders of human rights, finds human rights too inconvenient for their schemes.
Barney makes a very good point about the credibility of the story, but I'll disagree with it because I see the administration lining the ducks up in a row.
Of drugs "instead of torture": if you want to give the guys as much beer or psilocybin or hashish as you can and get them to casually cough up the information, I'm not going to stop you. But the most common "truth serum" is, in fact, merely a barbiturate; if a subject does not wish to tell the truth, the subject will not tell the truth. I was actually surprised to learn this, as I was seeking verification that such compounds cause brain damage and thus constitute torture. Apparently, this is not a widely credible fact. But I did learn that one who wishes to lie under the effects of "truth serum" can still do so. And that presents to me the question of, What drugs? The common truth serum is a high-quality barbiturate, and is not by any means foolproof. What other drugs can be used? And do those cause brain damage? But drugs instead of torture does not seem to be as viable an option as it might first appear.
You know, we tried to impeach Bill Clinton for fellatio. The argument was that he had violated the dignity of the presidency, and thus violated his oath. This, of course, a desperate argument when it became evident that the appearance of petty perjury irrelevant to the trial in which it was given would not do. But what of Bush? The courts do not have the authority to selectively set aside the Constitution. Perhaps in the case of a Hannibal Lecter, the notion of a clear and present danger would incite such restraints as, well, it's fiction, but you get what I mean. I think an ugly orange jumpsuit and heavy shackles will pretty much keep suspects under control. It will be difficult for Bush, especially in the Walker case, to justify in the long run violations of the United States Constitution. It can, in fact, lead to his impeachment.
We are going forth in this pseudo-war at least in part in the name of the "American Way", which includes due process and equal protection under the law, two notions which the Bush administration find inconvenient. Hence, the unlawful combatant label somehow overrides the Constitution? Torture would constitute a definite violation of the Constitution.
What, then of the international agreements? Let's just put it this way--imagine, for a moment, that we go forth with the torture of Zubieda. And, to mark this event, certain persons including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the military/intelligence officers who conduct the torture are called to answer charges before the World Court. Just imagine that for a moment.
What to do? Certainly the United States will not submit to the world court, but what of its authority, prestige, credibility, and leadership? We will have set the standard that a free society has no need for human rights, has no need for due process, and has no need for equal protection under the law. Certainly, there are worse in the world, but I'm not happy about the notion of my country becoming another evil force in history. Will we defy the world? Will we challenge the tenuous threads that hold the nations in what fragile balance they hang?
It all starts here, with these suspects and this action. We sent many to die in Vietnam, Korea, the Pacific Theatre, and Europe. I despise warfare, and demand a world in which such things do not happen; this, however, we all realize is an unrealistic demand. Would I torture to save how many? Absolutely not. As long as liberty, due process, and equal protection still shine, I can appreciate the sacrifice of pst conflicts to ensure these principles. But once we are through with them, and discard them on a sentimental whim, doesn't that really make the last, oh ... century of warfare just a little ridiculous? Why dismantle all that progress? Why tell the world that we're too good for what we impose elsewhere? Why resort to open hypocrisy? George Bush already stooped to bin Laden's level by making this about God. When all is said and done, though, we can laugh at the twit about that. I refuse to accept that it is good for anyone if the United States stoops to the Taliban's level and throws human rights out the window. If we are to lead the world, we must do so benevolently. We cannot sacrifice the principles of that benevolence and pretend it doesn't matter. The day we do, we snuff the beacon of hope, the American dream, the land of the free, the home of the brave, and I could go on like that for a while.
To torture suspects in the name of the United States is to forsake everything we hold dear. Ten thousand lives saved? One million lives saved? The whole of New York or Los Angeles? It's still temporal greed. How many billions will suffer when the benevolence is revoked?
Yes, it's a fair trade.
I will openly oppose my country if I truly believe that opposition will preserve it. Why, though, is Bush rushing toward that abyss? It's ridiculous and shortsighted to say the least, and threatens to undermine all that is good about the United States of America.
Right now the world is with us and not against us not only because of our might but because we have the credibility of being right in this situation. If we resort to torture, I would not be surprised to find some lining up against us.
Is it really about God, George? Then God help us all if the United States resorts so openly to torture.º
And one last note on torture: what do you really think the terrorists will do if we up the stakes that much? Will they get scared and go away? Homeland Security, my eye! They'll hit us real hard again, and it won't be that far in the future. It might take five years, but anyone who pretends the United States will be secure from terrorism after we're finished in Afghanistan, or if we torture Zubieda, needs to get their head checked.
thanx much,
Tiassa
Notes:
º Article cited: The original citation for that article may be found in my 2.4.2002 post. While the editorial content of that article does, indeed, reflect its socialist-website publication, it does not lessen the truth of its observations regarding the United States' position as regards human rights conventions.
º Resorts so openly to torture: You know, we all know the US tortures people. Come on, we've got way too much going on not to. But the public pretends it doesn't happen and the government employs plausible denial. We generally don't bother to even think about it. But should we torture such a high-profile subeject as Zubieda, and should that torture have openly-acknowledge public approval, the stakes will increase incalculably.
The answer is simply: Absolutely never.
First, to address Barney TRubble's point:
In the early phases of the military action in Afghanistan, as we enthusiastically believed we could get Osama bin Laden (e.g. before Rumsfeld admitted that we might not and then tried to retract his words), discussion of whether or not to torture suspects first focused on letting "others" do the dirty work. In other words, let another country's forces capture and torture the suspects. This notion was quickly shot down: torture is illegal by international convention. None of the United States' partners in this action have license to torture. By the same convention, the United States has previously agreed to forsake torture.
It's hardly an answer, but it does lend some interesting light to Goofyfish's POW or Unlawful Combatants topic. My own contribution to that topic (2.4.2002) includes a citation of an article discussing the nature of POW's. The Independent's article in the topic post notes:
And this is the whole point. Note that John Walker is being tried as a criminal in a proper civilian trial, yet is not being accorded the full rights of an accused criminal. This is because of the "unlawful combatant" label applied by the Bush administration.
As a criminal defendant in the United States, Walker is entitled to certain rights which are not being respected. Bush's UC label is his apparent justification for circumvention of the United States Constitution. This is unacceptable. We'll get to that, though, in the broader context. In the case of Zubeida, the UC label does not excuse the United States from its human rights conventions. As the article I citedº in the POW/UC topic notes:
• The Washington Post quotes an unnamed administration official making the same point: “We already know the end point, which is they’re not POWs.... Now the question is, why are they not POWs.”
• Both the US and Afghanistan are signatories to the 1949 treaty. The Bush administration declared a “war on terrorism,” and went to war against Afghanistan, publicly stating that the ousting of the Taliban regime was its objective. The US initiated bombing raids and dispatched ground troops. But when enemy fighters are captured, including Taliban, the government claims they are not prisoners of war and their treatment is not governed by international law.
• Even if the US wants to claim that they are not POWs because the US never formally declared war, this doesn’t pass muster, as the Geneva Convention does not require that both parties recognize a state of war.
• Article 5 of the Geneva Convention states: “Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”
• In other words, it is not up to the US to dictate who is a POW and who is not. Furthermore, until their status is determined, they must be provided with all the protections of a prisoner of war. All those detained have the right to refuse to provide any information aside from name, rank and serial number. Whether or not they are determined by a tribunal at a later time to be terrorists, or defendants to be tried for war crimes, can have no bearing on their treatment upon capture.
I, too, read carefully when an article is citing the opinion of any former status. But the United States government has gone to some effort to create a situation in which they are excused both from the Constitutional law that Bush has sworn to uphold and defend, and also the international law to which the United States is already obligated. The simple fact is that the Bush administration, while it wants to be portrayed as being promoters and defenders of human rights, finds human rights too inconvenient for their schemes.
Barney makes a very good point about the credibility of the story, but I'll disagree with it because I see the administration lining the ducks up in a row.
Of drugs "instead of torture": if you want to give the guys as much beer or psilocybin or hashish as you can and get them to casually cough up the information, I'm not going to stop you. But the most common "truth serum" is, in fact, merely a barbiturate; if a subject does not wish to tell the truth, the subject will not tell the truth. I was actually surprised to learn this, as I was seeking verification that such compounds cause brain damage and thus constitute torture. Apparently, this is not a widely credible fact. But I did learn that one who wishes to lie under the effects of "truth serum" can still do so. And that presents to me the question of, What drugs? The common truth serum is a high-quality barbiturate, and is not by any means foolproof. What other drugs can be used? And do those cause brain damage? But drugs instead of torture does not seem to be as viable an option as it might first appear.
You know, we tried to impeach Bill Clinton for fellatio. The argument was that he had violated the dignity of the presidency, and thus violated his oath. This, of course, a desperate argument when it became evident that the appearance of petty perjury irrelevant to the trial in which it was given would not do. But what of Bush? The courts do not have the authority to selectively set aside the Constitution. Perhaps in the case of a Hannibal Lecter, the notion of a clear and present danger would incite such restraints as, well, it's fiction, but you get what I mean. I think an ugly orange jumpsuit and heavy shackles will pretty much keep suspects under control. It will be difficult for Bush, especially in the Walker case, to justify in the long run violations of the United States Constitution. It can, in fact, lead to his impeachment.
We are going forth in this pseudo-war at least in part in the name of the "American Way", which includes due process and equal protection under the law, two notions which the Bush administration find inconvenient. Hence, the unlawful combatant label somehow overrides the Constitution? Torture would constitute a definite violation of the Constitution.
What, then of the international agreements? Let's just put it this way--imagine, for a moment, that we go forth with the torture of Zubieda. And, to mark this event, certain persons including President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the military/intelligence officers who conduct the torture are called to answer charges before the World Court. Just imagine that for a moment.
What to do? Certainly the United States will not submit to the world court, but what of its authority, prestige, credibility, and leadership? We will have set the standard that a free society has no need for human rights, has no need for due process, and has no need for equal protection under the law. Certainly, there are worse in the world, but I'm not happy about the notion of my country becoming another evil force in history. Will we defy the world? Will we challenge the tenuous threads that hold the nations in what fragile balance they hang?
It all starts here, with these suspects and this action. We sent many to die in Vietnam, Korea, the Pacific Theatre, and Europe. I despise warfare, and demand a world in which such things do not happen; this, however, we all realize is an unrealistic demand. Would I torture to save how many? Absolutely not. As long as liberty, due process, and equal protection still shine, I can appreciate the sacrifice of pst conflicts to ensure these principles. But once we are through with them, and discard them on a sentimental whim, doesn't that really make the last, oh ... century of warfare just a little ridiculous? Why dismantle all that progress? Why tell the world that we're too good for what we impose elsewhere? Why resort to open hypocrisy? George Bush already stooped to bin Laden's level by making this about God. When all is said and done, though, we can laugh at the twit about that. I refuse to accept that it is good for anyone if the United States stoops to the Taliban's level and throws human rights out the window. If we are to lead the world, we must do so benevolently. We cannot sacrifice the principles of that benevolence and pretend it doesn't matter. The day we do, we snuff the beacon of hope, the American dream, the land of the free, the home of the brave, and I could go on like that for a while.
To torture suspects in the name of the United States is to forsake everything we hold dear. Ten thousand lives saved? One million lives saved? The whole of New York or Los Angeles? It's still temporal greed. How many billions will suffer when the benevolence is revoked?
Yes, it's a fair trade.
I will openly oppose my country if I truly believe that opposition will preserve it. Why, though, is Bush rushing toward that abyss? It's ridiculous and shortsighted to say the least, and threatens to undermine all that is good about the United States of America.
Right now the world is with us and not against us not only because of our might but because we have the credibility of being right in this situation. If we resort to torture, I would not be surprised to find some lining up against us.
Is it really about God, George? Then God help us all if the United States resorts so openly to torture.º
And one last note on torture: what do you really think the terrorists will do if we up the stakes that much? Will they get scared and go away? Homeland Security, my eye! They'll hit us real hard again, and it won't be that far in the future. It might take five years, but anyone who pretends the United States will be secure from terrorism after we're finished in Afghanistan, or if we torture Zubieda, needs to get their head checked.
thanx much,
Tiassa
Notes:
º Article cited: The original citation for that article may be found in my 2.4.2002 post. While the editorial content of that article does, indeed, reflect its socialist-website publication, it does not lessen the truth of its observations regarding the United States' position as regards human rights conventions.
º Resorts so openly to torture: You know, we all know the US tortures people. Come on, we've got way too much going on not to. But the public pretends it doesn't happen and the government employs plausible denial. We generally don't bother to even think about it. But should we torture such a high-profile subeject as Zubieda, and should that torture have openly-acknowledge public approval, the stakes will increase incalculably.
Often these international treaties apply only to signatory nations. However, in the case of the CAT, it does say in Article Two that no signatory nation will allow torture anywhere within their jurisdiction. So, unless the USA wants to ignore the CAT, they wouldn't and couldn't do it.
Would the USA ignore international treaty?
Would the USA ignore international treaty?
Im still waiting for BUSHES arest for war crims in violation of the geniva convention.
Origonaly i thought that Al'qieda might be criminals rather than POW but it said something about ANYONE who spontainously picks up arms to risist an invasion is a POW so they are too.
SO when do the trials start for Bush, Blair and little johnny
Origonaly i thought that Al'qieda might be criminals rather than POW but it said something about ANYONE who spontainously picks up arms to risist an invasion is a POW so they are too.
SO when do the trials start for Bush, Blair and little johnny
Well, technically, they were.
The Geneva Convention of 1929 was signed by Japan but not ratified because of Japanese military objections. It was signed by 47 countries and ratified by 40 by 1941 and became part of the Hague Convention manifested as International Customary Law and is part of the restraint placed on the Japanese Government. However, Japan withheld its ratification. Despite the lack of an official ratification, the Japanese Government, after the attack of Pearl Harbor, responded through letters to the Swiss Embassy in Tokyo, that it would behave "in accordance with" the Geneva Convention. It is clear from the actions of the Japanese Government that they intended to bind themselves to the full force and effect of the Geneva Convention.
Peace.
Now I KNOW thats not true. Ask any Australian POW if they were treated in acordance with the convention. That is one of the reasons our older people STILL don't like the Japanise.
I will endever to find some stuff on the berma railway if you are interested goofyfish
By the way
while you are here would you mind posting that link to the geniva convention here if you still have it
I will endever to find some stuff on the berma railway if you are interested goofyfish
By the way
while you are here would you mind posting that link to the geniva convention here if you still have it
A signatory to the Geneva convention is not a guarantee of adherence to it Asguard.
Just because they may have VIOLATED what they signed doesn't mean they didnt sign it.
Just because they may have VIOLATED what they signed doesn't mean they didnt sign it.
We're gearing up to go public with our violations
I point to my own posts in this and other topics. What will happen if we torture Zubieda or otherwise violate international law? Well, the Bush administration has helped to make that clear in this Reuters article:
I think Bush knows well what is about to happen. The United States is about to go from "leader of the free world" to "rogue state" and very possibly "evil empire". Of course, that might be his decision, and not ours.
Of course, who is really surprised that the United States will balk at recognizing international authority? After all, it's a violation of the Constitution. Of course, so is WTO, UN, IMF, World Bank, and a number of other international bodies we recognize. No international body is supposed to have jurisdiction over what takes place inside our borders. Of course, we've signed away a bunch of that in treaties, but all we have to do is decide we don't want to play along, and who's going to stop us?
People get ready. I have to admit, it's a fascinating time to be an American.
thanx,
Tiassa
I point to my own posts in this and other topics. What will happen if we torture Zubieda or otherwise violate international law? Well, the Bush administration has helped to make that clear in this Reuters article:
So, essentially, when we fail to prosecute those who violate the constitution by performing acts of torture, for instance, we will refuse international jurisdiction?
I think Bush knows well what is about to happen. The United States is about to go from "leader of the free world" to "rogue state" and very possibly "evil empire". Of course, that might be his decision, and not ours.
Of course, who is really surprised that the United States will balk at recognizing international authority? After all, it's a violation of the Constitution. Of course, so is WTO, UN, IMF, World Bank, and a number of other international bodies we recognize. No international body is supposed to have jurisdiction over what takes place inside our borders. Of course, we've signed away a bunch of that in treaties, but all we have to do is decide we don't want to play along, and who's going to stop us?
People get ready. I have to admit, it's a fascinating time to be an American.
thanx,
Tiassa
On Britain and Australia
According to this Earth Times article, the UK has signed and ratified the treaty. A short quip that's amusing
That's as near as I can figure in a short search. Much to read these days, much to read ...
thanx,
Tiassa
According to this Earth Times article, the UK has signed and ratified the treaty. A short quip that's amusing
And, in fact, a December, 1999 press release from Ministers Downer (Foreign Affairs) and Moore (Defence), as well as Attorney General Williams, notes that Australia has committed to the International crimes court. The Joint Media Release, and its status at the time:
Amnesty International/Australia has a fact sheet available, but I have not begun to delve into that or other AI documents regarding the ICC.
That's as near as I can figure in a short search. Much to read these days, much to read ...
thanx,
Tiassa
ICC Update
As I dash out the door, this update: US Renounces Obligations to International Court:
Fuck.
--Tiassa
As I dash out the door, this update: US Renounces Obligations to International Court:
Just an update. It appears we're getting ready to set new precedents in world domination, but that's to be expected. Apologies around to all or international neighbors.
Fuck.
--Tiassa