Torture, is it wrong?

Torture is defined and banned under the Geneva Convention and the U.N. We are signatory to the agreement. I'm surprised you are so unfamiliar with the subject. Try this - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ul-says-torture-banned-under-us-internationa/

You think so? http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/torture-is-it-wrong.531382/page-8#post-1068993831

 

-Most were not innocent with evidence? I never made that claim, so why are you insisting that I defend it? I would tend to assume that most taken off the battlefield in conflict where they are not fighting for a nation and thus is technically illegal would in fact be guilty as charged, but Ive made no claim whatsoever as to it "being with evidence". I thought that I made myself very clear from the beginning that I was making an assumption just as you were when asserting that 95% being released seems to indicate to you their innocence.

-"Obama released 95% of them"?...... At no point have I made the assertion that Obama released over 95% of them.

-"Nope" ? Im not even sure what that means in the given context.

-Im not all that interested in splitting hairs with 500 or "over 500". Seems like a fairly meaningless distinction in the context of this particular discussion. What is relevant is that the term "released" is not factually correct or is at minimum misleading in the context in which it was stated.

 

Correct. That did happen. How many in the above scenarios made it all the way to Cuba before they were cleared and released?
And I don't really care if they hate us.

 

Who's "they"? I was referring to many, many non-Muslim/Arab countries. And during the Bush administration it was all over the news that many GITMO detainees were rounded up as I described. They weren't "cleared and released" because GITMO was where the interrogation happened!!!

 

I am familiar with the Geneva and UN conventions, but they lack, purposely, clarity and specificity. For instance, none of my examples are mentioned, as far as I know

 

"They" as in all of them. And I still don't care. Besides, they don't hate us because we water boarded terrorist suspects. That's crazy talk. They have been hating America a lot longer than that. That is what happens when you are the greatest country in the world.

So you believe we only ever captured and interrogated 780? After all, that is all that ever made it to GITMO.

 

true, however if you have someone who can save 500 people, and you protect them from getting their arm twisted to try and stop a bomb going off, in my opinion you are complicit in their deaths. There are grey areas where the law is protecting criminals and terrorist above normal citizens, who obey the law, as oppose to that/those individuals who breaks it.

 

We have found, that small indulgences are the key to getting intel. Listening, and giving treats, have proven far more effective, than pain. And, the intel gained, thru those means, are far more reliable.

 

if you have time, if you don't have time hundreds or thousands can die because you're busy giving treats.

 

Are you talking about animals or people?

Someone who wants you and everyone you have ever known dead, and you say "give them treats and listen"? WOW!

So maybe if we had just given Hitler treats? Who knew!

 

When you answer a question with a question it means you have nothing valuable to add to the conversation. Stupid question by the way.

 

That is a crime even against a belligerent and torture in the case of seeking intelligence still has to meet a certain threshold and is never random or casual.

 

Vietnam was not a war and the opposition employed guerrilla combatants that did not recognize the Geneva Convention.There is no clear or effective international law covering the conduct of guerrilla warfare therefore once in place anything goes and did.

 

USA is guilty of killing about 2 MILLION civilians during Korean and Vietnam wars. During Vietnam War, USA used torture of POWs excessively.

 

I don't know about candy bars, but I'd beat the tar out of someone if it meant preventing a nuclear detonation in NYC, Chicago, etc.

If it meant prevent the death of 10 million Americans. I'd perform the torture and then go have a beer, guilt-free.

Are you saying you'd refuse to torture and allow the death of 10 million? Wow.

 

if saving 10 million people meant i had to brutally and sadistally torture one innocent person to death, I would not do it.

 

What if you had to torture one person to save the existence of life in the universe?

 

was the person an innocent man?

 

OP...USA tortures. If USA tortures then the world can torture.

USA tears down historical monuments. If USA destroys monuments the world can destroy monuments to history.

 

Not always.

Same way one can believe deliberate homicide is sometimes justified. You're welcome.

Of course it does, if it's done competently.

And everybody knows it.

 

Your choices are:

1. torture and then kill an innocent disabled black trans homeless pack a day smoking woman over a period of 6 months in the most horrendous ways imaginable

or

2. have the universe spontaneously do the same to every man woman and child before killing all forms of life and permanently ending existence itself.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Do you give up yourself and your conscience, and commit suicide after as penance - thereby saving all life in the universe from horrible torture and death - or remain recalcitrant and let existence itself perish?

 

It's clearly hopeless. I give up.

 

Ears first, then the scalp, then the genitals, then hung by the ankles and gutted slowly.

 

So no, then. In other words, you're not really prepared to go that far to save lives, you're only willing to torture people because you think that's quite a neat thing to do to them.

 

Those aren't grey areas, they are the part of the law that's actually important.

Everybody wants to follow the law when they like it. Imprison a bank robber? Everybody's fine with that. Give fines to a corrupt business? Everybody except Trump is absolutely fine with that.

But to not torture someone even if it might save lives? Lots of people aren't fine with that, which is why the law is a law. If it only applied when we felt like it, it wouldn't be a law, it'd be a friendly suggestion.

I'm willing to die for what's right; if they'd have to torture someone to save my life, I'd say no. But that kind of adherence to principle is clearly beyond some people.