Guantanamo Bay

J

johnlocke

We DONT know, thats the thing, but if we have strong evidence, even if it might be wrong, we are still not gonna leave it to chance. Were gonna find out if this guy knows any thing. If he doesnt, im sorry but mistakes are BOUND to happen. Remember this is a war, not a conventional one with big masses of armies in uniform but a WAR nonetheless. Civilians are ALWAYS caught up in wars. Im NOT justifying it, im saying that it is going to happen no matter how hard u try to avoid it.
I'm sorry, but arguing "OOPS, mistakes happen" is reprehensible in this context. IF you are going to "aggressively interrogate"...screw it, I HATE EUPHAMISMS...

IF you are going to torture someone you had better be damned sure the guy is guilty, has the information you need, and that NO OTHER way will yield the desired results.
 
The entire argument "We cannot wait for a smoking gun/mushroom cloud, etc. before we act." Falls down in the face of common and international law.

No one may be prosecuted/punished for having the potential to commit crime (we all in fact have that). There has to be rock-solid evidence of intent, and the illegal act has to be in the process of commission (even if in the very early stages).

Therefore, to commit one crime - torture in this case - as a matter of prevention, and on the basis of a suspected potential to commit another crime, is both unreasonable and illegal.

And, on the practical level, (and this has been said literally dozens of times here) torture has been proven over the centuries to be one of the most unreliable methods of interrogation.

And it is not up to the United States, or any other nation, to decide what is, and what is not, torture. These things are agreed upon an international basis.
 
Z

Zarathustra

IF you are going to torture someone you had better be damned sure the guy is guilty, has the information you need, and that NO OTHER way will yield the desired results.


Thats EXACTLY what i advocate you keep going back and forth with me on "oh how do you know the guy is guilty".
 
Z

Zarathustra

Therefore, to commit one crime - torture in this case - as a matter of prevention, and on the basis of a suspected potential to commit another crime, is both unreasonable and illegal.

And, on the practical level, (and this has been said literally dozens of times here) torture has been proven over the centuries to be one of the most unreliable methods of interrogation.

.

Again, it all depends on what you define as torture. Im sick of my words getting twisted and misconstrued of course i only advocate interrogating a suspect when were sure hes got info, what other fucking time would you think id do it???
 
R
Again, it all depends on what you define as torture. Die hard partisans against GITMO are twisting my words, and im sick of it.
I see we edited Leo's post to skip the bit where it says
"america cannot define what torture, it is agreed on an international basis"
He is not twisting your words, he is directly confronting you on the fact that your trying to make torture look like something prettier with lots of flowers and rabbits and children skipping

Saying that America has redefined quite a few things such as "self defense" and "justification (causi bella)"
 
A

Ausinus

No we do not. We are not torturng anyone, and our methods comply with Geneva Convention.
The Geneva Conventions are so vague upon the matter of torture as to be open to interpretation. Additionally, you are detaining prisoners without due process.
 
Z

Zarathustra

I hope your not trying to start a fight because you wont get one from me. Yes we are detaining with out due process and i dont understand the logic used to justify it, but whatever its not my main focus. My focus is clarifying the techniques we use and the camps conditions.
 

Similar Discussions