Was the agreement ratified by Congress? Ifso, then sure- as far as they have meaning. Right now, under that meaningless “definition” the US can be said to be 100% in compliance- or completely & repeatedly in violation.
To quote: IF!!!
IF Aardvarks had wings- would they be birds?:rolleyes:
Damn, I was hoping somebody who could at least manage to take a consistent, rational position would show up to take the side of the U.S. government in this one. Instead, we get DrDeth, who:
[ul][li]Adheres to varying definitions of “torture,” depending upon whichever is convenient for making a pointless nitpick at whoever he’s addressing.[/li][li]Dismisses the United States’ agreed-to commitments under international law as “a meaningless political gesture.”[/li][li]Refuses on at least three separate occasions to define the word on which his entire argument relies: severe.[/li][li]Assumes that elements of the Post story are true, until it is pointed out that some of those elements rebut his arguments, at which point he comes back with the witty rejoinder that “none of the details are confirmed.” As if he expects John Ashcroft to release videotape of the beatings and other assorted mechanisms of torture.[/li][li]Whines that “If there’s torture, where are the indictments?” but proves impervious to a demonstration of the lunacy behind the complaint by way of the unindicted murder of Jon Benet Ramsey.[/ul][/li]Pathetic stuff, really. Does anybody else want to step up to the plate in defense of the government’s apparent actions? 'Cause if I agreed with those actions, I know I wouldn’t want to be associated with arguments as transparently dumb as these.
Treaty number 100-20, signed by the president in 1988, ratified by the Senate in 1994. This is the ratification of the previously mentioned UN Convention. I recommend Thomas (the search engine on the US Senate site) if you wish to check me.
Now then, the if I was discussing has nothing to do with aadvarks. It does have to do with the possibility that the US is in violation of a treaty it signed.
A more pertinent question would be where you draw the line between ‘uncomfortable’ and torture. Beatings, sleep deprivation, and confinement in pain inducing cells constitutes torture for me.
Look, Olentzero, you jumped into the debate with this statement:
It is your absolutist position that “does nothing to further the course of this debate,” inasmuch as it allows for no debate whatsoever.
I am trying (unsuccessfully) to get you to meditate on whether such a position is morally sustainable under all conceivable circumstances. You, however, seem incapable of seeing the world in any hue that is not black or white.
Absolutism is dangerous. People who see the world in absolute moral terms have a nasty habit of joining fanatical religious movements (like the Libertarian Party).
We can all agree (well, most of us posters can agree) that the situation described in the OP is deplorable. But let’s come to that conclusion logically.
Again= I have agreed upon exactly one definition of torture. One. Physical pain. Ferthesakeofarguement only, I was debating the other. I have made this very clear.
My arguement doesn’t rely on the definition of the word “severe”- yours does. I could care less what the word means in a meaningless context. My arguement was that since the word “severe” is NOT defined, the UN definition is meaningless PC feel-good polito-babble. Define the word “meaningless” for me, please. Again- if you can define “torture” (or any word) however you want- then it becomes meaningless. Of course- if I DO define “severe” as “unsparing & harsh”- then you’ll want me to define “harsh”… which is defined as “extremely severe”. Which goes back to “severe”. Don’t you own a dictionary? Can I just provide a link to an online dictionary so you’ll stop bothering me? (Define “bother”).
The elements I assumed do not rebut my points. I assumed “stress” not beatings.
And yes- IF the US was engaging in torture that would be wrong. But it isn’t. So- the big point is IF. I can also say, and we can debate “if Aardvarks have wings, then they’d be birds”. But they don’t. See, first I’d have to show winged aardvarks. So- you have to prove “torture” by US agents. And you can’t & haven’t.
Now, since that treaty has been ratified by the Senate- it becomes US law- so bring suit, then. Go ahead. If you win, I’ll admit I was wrong. There is exactly 0 chance of you winning, and about that of you putting your money where your mouth is and bringing suit. Or don’t your convictions really mean anything?
A great semantic quibbler has given us a fine performance, but we are nowhere closer to addressing the real issue: the morality of what the U.S is doing with terrorism suspects.
There’s another thing to keep in mind here. I don’t know how many of you caught this, but some of the Gitmo detainees are to be released because, point of fact, they are entirely innocent. Just some ignorant goat farmers, wrong place, wrongest possible time.
If it were our policy to torture these in order to obtain information, we might very well be torturing innocent men. Thier stories and alibis would be identical to those who are, in fact, guilty: they would claim ignorance, and they would be telling the truth. Having nothing to give thier tormentor, no information to surrender, they would be presumed to be stubborn. With predictable results.
Torture is strategicly weak. As well as, of course, being utterly reprehensible. Did I say utterly? Would that I had a stronger word.
I have been reading SDMB for about four years now, and until now I have never felt the need to respond to anything said. However, in this case I feel I must say something. If torture is only causing physical pain, and therefore sleep deprivation falls outside of this definition, consider that denying a prisoner food or water under any definition, political regime etc. could be considered nothing but torture. Without food and water, one dies. Without sleep, one dies. It is denying someone a basic human necessity. I can think of no situations where any just body which is holding prisoners can justifiably deny them the basic human considerations of life. In addition, (this may be a little out there but bear with me), the torturing of prisoners by the US is like the Jocks at Columbine HS going into the chess club or whatever and roughing up the “nerds” in order to prevent another horrible violent event. It is not a good business practice in any way, shape or form.
1150
Four years? Four years! and then post #1?
You are one strange buckaroo. Oh, yeah, welcome and all that.
Welcome to the SDMB, and thanks for making this your first thread!
luce’, where did you see that we’re actually set to release some of the Gitmo detainees? Last I saw, they were even refusing to release the 80-year-old Alzheimer’s patient.
My experience is that OZ does think in black and white, and really dosen’t care to defend it. I repeatedly and politely asked him to clarify his stated beliefs a few months ago because I wanted to understand them. What I got back was truisms and a refusal to do so. I persisted. He insited that I could “search for it on the boards”. I did and couldn’t find anything, to which he responded “I’m not going to get into it again”. I gave up. Pity, really, because I had some specific questions and was hoping for answers, not knee jerk defensiveness. I think the answer to your question is going to dpend on the point he’s trying to make at the time.
Most likely New York Times. I pick it up bus-stopping most every day, kind of habituated. Pretty sure, come to think of it, sometime this last week or so. Wasn’t a big number, but there were some that the interrogators had realized were of no “significant intelligence potential.” (Love the way they talk. Its like an amazingly lifeless poetry)
DDG, you out there? You’re the Googlemeister, and I’m too lazy.
Rather than a debate on the semantic qualifications of ‘torture,’ I perceived the query to be related to, “Is this justifiable?”
Let me construct a scenario:
US Spec Ops in Afghanistan capture a high ranking Al Qaeda operative. After a month of interrogation, he still remains silent. Intelligence discoveries reveal that this man may have knowledge of an impending massive terrorist attack planned for later in the year. This suspect may know the people, the plan, the safehouses, etc. However, he won’t talk.
Would using some of the afformentioned techniques be justifiable? Would putting him in a room of bright lights for more than 24 hours straight be OK, so long as it was used to obstract information that could save hundreds of lives?
As a personal input of mine, the so-called “softening up” techniques are sickening. I don’t support, nor condemn, the techniques that involve standing and lighting. While nothing pleasant, I think its justification may vary on a case to case basis. However, it remains a subject I’m divided with myself on.
I apologize, minty, if this is too far a tangent from what you originally intended.
Isn’t that just the ticking bomb scenario?
Weirddave, might I ask what you thought such a post might achieve here? It didn’t really seem necessary.
I agree wholeheartedly! But how do we arrive at that position by finding “situations” where an individual’s opposition to torture could be called into question? I’m not trying to quash debate, but I certainly don’t see the point of considering a question that has very little bearing on the subject at hand, to say nothing of reality.
Honestly, I’m not too familiar with the ticking bomb scenario, but now that I reread previous threads I think it is. Heh. Sorry about that.
This puzzles me. How would you ‘know’ the bomb existed, as opposed to reasonably suspecting that it exists? And how would you know the person being tortured actually has the information you seek?
Is that covered in the scenario?
So morality is fine and well so long as it benefits us, but when it means paying a price morality goes out the window? So where does the acceptability stop? Suppose we know torturing a certain man will not accomplish as much as torturing his family in his presence. Is it still OK to do it if it will save enough lives? How about just punishing and terrorising his town or his country?
If you say effectiveness comes before morality, then you have just described the best justification for terrorism. America has decided to descend to that level?
Countries that resort to this barbaric conduct end up paying a very high price. Ask the people of Argentina or Chile. The entire country is marked by the attrocities they committed. The victims as much as the perpetrators. I hope I never have to live in a culture which would condone the use of torture, ever.
Can you clarify something for me? Does “rightly, IMO” in your statement apply both to the view of the U.S. as an oppressor and to the attack on the WTC as an effective means of striking back? That’s the way it reads to me. Thanks.