Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (6481)	5/19/2007 11:23:02 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10087

Alright Gem.. you invited me to comment on this VERY CONTROVERSIAL and SUBJECTIVE topic, so here's a portion of my view on it... First off.. the Geneva Convention (GC) is a treaty, signed by counter-party governments, which is a mutually agreed upon "contract" regarding the treatment of each signator's combatants in the event a state of war is declared between them. It also outlines the treatment of non-combatants by each of the signators and defines (to a limited extent) how to define what defines a combatant (uniforms, insignia.. etc). Now, as part of this, folks have to ask themselves... if one side of that treaty opts to deliberately violate their half of the agreement, what obligation does our side have to abide by our side of the treaty? As an analogy, if we were discussing WMD treaties of "no first use", and one side decides to nuke the other, are we supposed to restrain ourselves from retaliating? Secondly, groups like Al Qai'da are not signators to the GC. In fact, they are not even recognized sovereign governments. And the very tactics they follow in waging their war/struggle is, at its heart, a violation of the GC because they deliberately target innocent non-combatants in order to undermine the authority of the government. They execute prisoners in brutal fashion merely for representing "collaboration" (actual or perceived) with the government they are fighting. They engage in hostage taking, mutilation, and regularly violate what would be the obligation of any occupying power (were they a signator of the GC) towards the proper and respective treatment of the people under occupation. In essence, they regularly display utter contempt and disregard for every concept defined within the GC. So one has to ask themselves why we provide them the benefit of the protections of that treaty when the very nature of their tactics revolve around blatant violations of it? Now let's get specific with a few examples to consider when we attempt to define what constitutes torture. Let me ask you parents a question out there. If you spank your children for misbehaving, is that torture? Can you be criminally prosecuted for spanking? How many of you were the recipient of corporal punishment while in school? How many of you were threatened with it, it you continued to misbehave in school? Now here is a more extreme example. You pull into a 7/11 to get some snacks, and out of the store window you see your family being kidnapped. You rush out to try and assist and you manage to capture one of the assailants while his partners scream away with the family you love. How do you treat the thug who you've captured? Do you call the police, wait 1/2 hour for them to show up and arrest the guy, book him, and then commence their "interrogation"? Or do you immediately proceed to "extract" the information you need from your captive, by any means you consider necessary, in order to find out who his friends are and where they are taking your family? In sum, this is a topic with some very broad moral interpretations. What is the value of the life of the detainee in our custody when compared to the lives of innocent non-combatants that he and his fellow terrorists have deliberately targeted for death? It's very easy for most of us to make moral judgements about the efficacy of torture, or how it is even defined. I personally define torture as procedure that DOES NOT have the express intent of safeguarding the lives of innocent non-combatants, or preventing the adversary from committing a flagrant and deliberate violation of the Geneva Conventions. In other words, if detainees are being physically abused for punitive purposes (punishment) then it's torture. But if those people are reasonably suspected of being part of a group deliberately plotting to commit a terrorist act in violation of the GC, and are suspected of having information that would thwart such a violation, then IMO, we have a HIGHER moral obligation of using whatever means necessary to defend the intended victims than we do in defending the rights of the plotter/perpetrator. Just my opinion. And I FULLY ADMIT that it is controversial and open to moral dispute. Hawk

To: one_less who wrote (6481)	5/20/2007 7:55:23 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 10087

On further consideration I am giving Tim's question a 'No' answer. The threat to commit torture should not normally be considered an act of torture, when viewed from the prisoner's perspective. It might instill fear that has the same effect on the prisoner, (willingness to cooperate) as having been tortured but the prisoner has not in fact been tortured. However, forming the sincere intent to commit torture is the first action, of the torturer and marks a distinction between a torturer's identity and otherwise labeled interrogators.