Torture impairs ability to tell the truth

[cancel2 2022]

i have offered my opinion on this subject numerous times.....why do you jump to conclusions?

i do not have all the facts as to this waterboarding, and neither do you.....and please.....the videos....are you actually claiming that is the sole and final factual evidence.....

if you can't differentiate the legal argument here and are only arguing your opinion, why do you bother? opinions have been said, i point out that it has not been proven as fact and you have a problem with that?

do you have a problem with facts onceler?

The Americans executed Japanese soldiers for using waterboarding in WW2 so it was obviously considered to be both illegal and torture then, can you produce a document to show that the law changed?

 

[DamnYankee]

The Americans executed Japanese soldiers for using waterboarding in WW2 so it was obviously considered to be both illegal and torture then, can you produce a document to show that the law changed?

The Japanese used a much different technique and used it on lawful soldiers.

 

[WinterBorn]

The Japanese used a much different technique and used it on lawful soldiers.

So, if our gov't had used waterboarding on lawful soldiers, it would have been wrong?

Now their job title or political/religious affiliation is the determining factor in whether or not an act is illegal or not?

 

[WinterBorn]

The Japanese used a much different technique and used it on lawful soldiers.

I am having trouble finding descriptions of s clear difference between the waterboarding techniques used by the japanese and the ones used USA.

Exactly what are the differences.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I am having trouble finding descriptions of s clear difference between the waterboarding techniques used by the japanese and the ones used USA.

Exactly what are the differences.

Their water was from the Sea of Japan. Ours was from the Caribbean.

 

[WinterBorn]

Their water was from the Sea of Japan. Ours was from the Caribbean.

Oh! That explains it.

 

[DamnYankee]

So, if our gov't had used waterboarding on lawful soldiers, it would have been wrong?

Now their job title or political/religious affiliation is the determining factor in whether or not an act is illegal or not?

The water boarding as administered by the CIA, yes.

The determining factor of a soldier's legality is adherence to UN rules of conduct.

 

[DamnYankee]

I am having trouble finding descriptions of s clear difference between the waterboarding techniques used by the japanese and the ones used USA.

Exactly what are the differences.

As I recall he Japanese methods have been described fairly recently on this very board. Perhaps you should spend less time reading Solitary's old posts (prior to him losing his job and his nervous breakdown) and read more current posts.

In other words, get your priorities straight and do your own research.

 

[WinterBorn]

The water boarding as administered by the CIA, yes.

The determining factor of a soldier's legality is adherence to UN rules of conduct.

The Geneva Convention has being a soldier as the determining factor.

I do not think the UN Resolution does.

 

[DamnYankee]

The Geneva Convention has being a soldier as the determining factor.

....

Link?

 

[WinterBorn]

Link?

That is really not relevant. The Geneva Convention governs over armed conflicts. I should not have brought it up.

The UN Resolution against torture does not use any determination concerning who can or cannot be tortured. The Resolution expressly forbids torture.

"Part 1
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

 

[DamnYankee]

That is really not relevant. The Geneva Convention governs over armed conflicts. I should not have brought it up.

The UN Resolution against torture does not use any determination concerning who can or cannot be tortured. The Resolution expressly forbids torture.

"Part 1
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Again, the UN resolution applies to its signers and lawful combatants. Once a country or organization willfully and systematically uses terrorist tactics they are not lawful combatants and once captured, a different set of rules apply. Again I don't condone torture on these individuals but the techniques used by the CIA in order to obtain important information don't meet the more general definition of torture.

An analogy here is two guys trading insults and adhering to a gentleman's rule not to involve a man's innocent family members. Once one breaks protocol the other now has license to lower the bar, as long as he doesn't stoop to the same low level as the rule breaker.

For instance, if you were to insinuate that my wife is a whore, I could come back and call yours ugly, and as a result you would be considered an asshole and I'd be completely justified.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution allows the government broad powers against foreigners intent on doing us harm.

I see you have no answer to the question. I will simply have to accept that you don't know it, or you know you're wrong and will refuse to admit it.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The water boarding as administered by the CIA, yes.

The determining factor of a soldier's legality is adherence to UN rules of conduct.

see, there's this little issue, in the constitution that you apparently don't really understand, about 'equal protection under the laws. you conveniently ignore that issue as you see fit, so why bother with a constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

Again, the UN resolution applies to its signers and lawful combatants. Once a country or organization willfully and systematically uses terrorist tactics they are not lawful combatants and once captured, a different set of rules apply. Again I don't condone torture on these individuals but the techniques used by the CIA in order to obtain important information don't meet the more general definition of torture.

An analogy here is two guys trading insults and adhering to a gentleman's rule not to involve a man's innocent family members. Once one breaks protocol the other now has license to lower the bar, as long as he doesn't stoop to the same low level as the rule breaker.

For instance, if you were to insinuate that my wife is a whore, I could come back and call yours ugly, and as a result you would be considered an asshole and I'd be completely justified.

Except you started your argument out with a false premise.

The UN Resolution does not apply to only its signors and lawful combatants. The UN Resolution does not exempt any use of torture. So the definition of torture contained in that resolution most certainly does apply.

The UN resolution was written to outlaw torture completely. Not just in the confines of a military situation.

As for your example, it is only relevant in your mind. And the "...as a result you would be considered an asshole" is only an issue were I to value the opinions of those who consider me an asshole.

Also, when you insult other people's family members (especially their mothers), you cannot then claim the moral high ground at a later date.

 

[DamnYankee]

I see you have no answer to the question. I will simply have to accept that you don't know it, or you know you're wrong and will refuse to admit it.

Actually, I have offered an an answer, just not the answer that you had wished for.

 

[DamnYankee]

see, there's this little issue, in the constitution that you apparently don't really understand, about 'equal protection under the laws. you conveniently ignore that issue as you see fit, so why bother with a constitution.

Again, the terrorists who were water boarded weren't US citizens.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Actually, I have offered an an answer, just not the answer that you had wished for.

no, you didn't. the question I asked required a simple yes or no answer. You chose to give an answer that makes you feel comfortable with torture. It is an incorrect answer.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Again, the terrorists who were water boarded weren't US citizens.

which are not exempt from protection of the us constitution. you were already owned on that issue once.

 

[DamnYankee]

no, you didn't. the question I asked required a simple yes or no answer. You chose to give an answer that makes you feel comfortable with torture. It is an incorrect answer.

It is a correct answer, just not one that you find acceptable.