Is it okay to torture Al Qaida mastermind?

[MC]

[ March 03, 2003, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Michael J. Carmona ]

[jsd540]

If membership is confirmed...they can provide intel...wtf why not !?!

[lyot]

no, plain and simple..

[Martin Red]

Originally posted by Michael J. Carmona:

It's Ron Jeremy after a night on the tiles. [img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]

[AD]

No, but you know it will happen anyway. I don't care what BS they say about human rights. That's garbage and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it will happen.

[Jacques de Doozu]

Originally posted by Albert D.:
No, but you know it will happen anyway. I don't care what BS they say about human rights. That's garbage and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it will happen.

hmmm...dangerous attitude albert.
my opinion: no

[Martin Red]

Originally posted by Tom D:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Albert D.:
No, but you know it will happen anyway. I don't care what BS they say about human rights. That's garbage and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it will happen.

hmmm...dangerous attitude albert.
my opinion: no</font>[/QUOTE]Is it right when a paedophile goes into prison, he gets battered/beaten by the screws/wardens, then they let the in-mates have a go aswell. The idea may be looked on as wrong but no one really minds.

[Jacques de Doozu]

Originally posted by Martin Red:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tom D:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Albert D.:
No, but you know it will happen anyway. I don't care what BS they say about human rights. That's garbage and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it will happen.

hmmm...dangerous attitude albert.
my opinion: no</font>[/QUOTE]Is it right when a paedophile goes into prison, he gets battered/beaten by the screws/wardens, then they let the in-mates have a go aswell. The idea may be looked on as wrong but no one really minds.</font>[/QUOTE]i just don't think that it's right to 'assume' these things will happen. i know i'm not being realistic, but it's from an 'ethical' point of view. paedophiles should get boned by kids btw...on a voluntary basis offcourse (kids can be very cruel) [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

[Martin Red]

I think the only time it is really really wrong is when they realise the people in prison are innocent.

E.G - The Birmingham six !

Inprisioned for the IRA bombings in Birmingham in the 70's

locked up, beaten for confessions, beaten in prison.

Released in the 80's, given millions compensation for the life they lost.

At least the West Midlands Seriuos Crime Squad have been disbanded, they where a crime wave.

[ March 04, 2003, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: Martin Red ]

[AD]

Originally posted by Tom D:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martin Red:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tom D:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Albert D.:
No, but you know it will happen anyway. I don't care what BS they say about human rights. That's garbage and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it will happen.

hmmm...dangerous attitude albert.
my opinion: no</font>[/QUOTE]Is it right when a paedophile goes into prison, he gets battered/beaten by the screws/wardens, then they let the in-mates have a go aswell. The idea may be looked on as wrong but no one really minds.</font>[/QUOTE]i just don't think that it's right to 'assume' these things will happen. i know i'm not being realistic, but it's from an 'ethical' point of view. paedophiles should get boned by kids btw...on a voluntary basis offcourse (kids can be very cruel) [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Do you honestly believe that the U.S. government does not use torture as a means to get information from people? There is a reason why they won't bring him to the U.S. and it's because of all the laws and rights that he would have under our justice system, therefore, they'll keep him and interrogate him elsewhere. Anyone that doesn't think the U.S. uses torture as a way to get information from people must be in la la land.

[ March 04, 2003, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: Albert D. ]

[Monny JcIntosh]

Originally posted by Martin Red:
I think the only time it is really really wrong is when they realise the people in prison are innocent.

Before or after they realise they are innocent?

[Jacques de Doozu]

Originally posted by Albert D.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tom D:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martin Red:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tom D:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Albert D.:
No, but you know it will happen anyway. I don't care what BS they say about human rights. That's garbage and it doesn't take a genius to realize that it will happen.

hmmm...dangerous attitude albert.
my opinion: no</font>[/QUOTE]Is it right when a paedophile goes into prison, he gets battered/beaten by the screws/wardens, then they let the in-mates have a go aswell. The idea may be looked on as wrong but no one really minds.</font>[/QUOTE]i just don't think that it's right to 'assume' these things will happen. i know i'm not being realistic, but it's from an 'ethical' point of view. paedophiles should get boned by kids btw...on a voluntary basis offcourse (kids can be very cruel) [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Do you honestly believe that the U.S. government does not use torture as a means to get information from people? There is a reason why they won't bring him to the U.S. and it's because of all the laws and rights that he would have under our justice system, therefore, they'll keep him and interrogate him elsewhere. Anyone that doesn't think the U.S. uses torture as a way to get information from people must be in la la land.</font>[/QUOTE]i know. as i said, it's from an ethical point of view. the prisoners on guantanamo (sp?) bay have no rights, or legal status whatsoever, how does that comply with UN regulations? greetings from lala land anyhow [img]graemlins/all_coholic.gif[/img]

[Martin Red]

Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martin Red:
I think the only time it is really really wrong is when they realise the people in prison are innocent.

Before or after they realise they are innocent?</font>[/QUOTE]both, but obviously - people don't usually know until afterwards.

[lyot]

i have no single doubt the US is torturing.. Last week ,there was a professor from some kind of US university who wanted to make torturing legal under certain circumstances..His logic was that it happens anyway, so you better have a decent legal framework to avoid excesses.. I find it incredible to read statements like these in the year 2003..A governement that tortures captives, or has them tortured (there are reports saying that the US hands over Al Quaeda detainees to friendly foreign secret services to 'extract' evidence out of them) can not claim that she has morality on her side..How ridiculous is it to claim that you are doing a war for humanitarian purposes while it at the same time neglecting the most basic rights of human beings in captivity? It's sickening !

peace

[Monny JcIntosh]

I was passed some info from my girlfriend a while back about a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay, apparently the highest ranking Taliban offical captured at that time, who had died under interrogation and whose body was flown back to Pakistan. She works at Amnesty on Afghanistan (and is flying out there in three weeks time :( ) and part of her job is to keep track of reports like that, though it didn't appear to be reported outside of Pakistan. That torture should even be considered is despicable (innocent or not) and I'm really quite sad to read some of the comments on this thread.

[Constantin]

Originally posted by Martin Red:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martin Red:
I think the only time it is really really wrong is when they realise the people in prison are innocent.

Before or after they realise they are innocent?</font>[/QUOTE]both, but obviously - people don't usually know until afterwards.</font>[/QUOTE]so, doesn't that mean that - alone for this one reason - torture is never justified?

[DJ76]

It could very well be argued that, had Al Qaeda or Taliban soldiers detained American POWs, they sure would not shy away from using torture to get what they want out of them. But one must remember that reciprocity does not apply in international humanitarian law. The experience is as traumatizing for the detainee than for the one applying torture. In any case, it is never justified. Retribution doesn't have any legal nor moral justification.

My 2 cents.

[Martin Red]

Originally posted by Constantin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martin Red:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martin Red:
I think the only time it is really really wrong is when they realise the people in prison are innocent.

Before or after they realise they are innocent?</font>[/QUOTE]both, but obviously - people don't usually know until afterwards.</font>[/QUOTE]so, doesn't that mean that - alone for this one reason - torture is never justified?</font>[/QUOTE]I suppose, if there is no trust in the Legal system what have we got left ?

[ngeso]

at present there is ongoing heated debate about the legalities of institutional torture in Germany.

in a spectacular turn of events a man, accused of kidnapping and murdering the 8 year old son of a very prominent banker and his wife for purposes of extortion last year, stands to be discharged because a full confession to the crime, made after police investigators threatened him with torture to determine the whereabouts of the child - at that time thought to be possibly alive - is not admissible (sp?) as evidence in a German court of law.

the senior police official (i'm not 100% sure, but i believe it was the Frankfurt chief of police) who led the investigations was fully aware of the legal implications of such a threat, and took great pains to document his threat towards the suspect on audio tape as well as in an elaborate report, that was submitted to the district attorney's office immediately after the interrogations. he now possibly faces indictment and a rather stiff prison sentence for his actions.

according to German law, torture is a magnitudinous criminal offence. torture cannot be administered under any circumstances, because it violates the personal dignity of the person being tortured. even in a case where it is argued that a crime, such as murder, might in effect be avoided, German law places the dignity of a person above the factual state of physical existence, i.e. "mere" life (or death). German law establishes, that, whereas a person, on death, ceases to physically exist, the dignity of a person extends indefinetly beyond the point of decease, and is therefore to be protected at all costs.

peace. ngeso.

[lyot]

did the US actually sign the UN Treaty Against Torture ? Does anyone know ?

peace

[Monny JcIntosh]

Originally posted by Martin Red:

I suppose, if there is no trust in the Legal system what have we got left ?

Presumably, you have little enough trust in a system that got it wrong with the Birmingham six?

[mk7]

what kind of medieval sh*t is this? if there's any proof then this guy will get the death penalty anyway... Torture, jesus please no!

Still, who the f*ck is gonna stop the U.S. government doing whatever they want anyhow? And what are all those they showed their opposition to the war in marches across the world supposed to do when it kicks off anyway? burn a mcdonalds?!
there is nothing left but revolution...

peace (in troubled times)
mark

[ngeso]

Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martin Red:

I suppose, if there is no trust in the Legal system what have we got left ?

Presumably, you have little enough trust in a system that got it wrong with the Birmingham six?</font>[/QUOTE]Jonny, are the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four the same set of people, or was that another case? (the Guildford Four were portrayed in the movie "In The Name of the Father" starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Emma Thompson and Pete Postlethwaite)

peace. ngeso.

[Monny JcIntosh]

Originally posted by ngeso:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jonny McIntosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martin Red:

I suppose, if there is no trust in the Legal system what have we got left ?

Presumably, you have little enough trust in a system that got it wrong with the Birmingham six?</font>[/QUOTE]Jonny, are the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four the same set of people, or was that another case? (the Guildford Four were portrayed in the movie "In The Name of the Father" starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Emma Thompson and Pete Postlethwaite)

peace. ngeso.</font>[/QUOTE]Ngeso, different. They are probably the two best known examples of miscarriages of justice in the UK. The Guildford four were convicted on the basis of made up evidence of pub bombings in Guildford,the Birmingham six, also accused of pub bombings, were convicted on the basis of confessions that the jury were not allowed to see. The confessions were extremely dubious, inconsistent and had been beaten out of the suspects.

Just checking around for some info, check here.

[DJ76]

Originally posted by lyot:
did the US actually sign the UN Treaty Against Torture ? Does anyone know ?

peace

The US have signed but not ratified the Convention against torture, which means that although it isn't binding on the US, the latter must respect the spirit of the convention and its dispositions. I am not sure whether the US has made any reservations or declarations against the Convention or if it has shown some kind of customary attitude towards it. I'll investigate on this.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs.html