I would not normally post on these subjects as I reserve my own ideas on this. But I have to ask a few questions of both parties onthis conversation.

1. What is torture? Not the book definition but yours.

one reason so many are against a specific "list" of acts here is because that is pretty much irrelevant. torture and inhumain treatment are defined by the person receiving it, not by the people doing it. yes, there are some things that may be torture to anyone, or most anyone. but by defining the list from the giver of torture's perspective, it never addresses what the rec. feels is torture. so if you have a list, you can just do things that aren't on the list specifically, perhaps because you don't think it's cruel...but you also know your captive does find it to be horriffic.

2. Can you think of any time that torture (real physical pain, break bones, etc.. type torture), would be OK or necessary? What if the person you had in custody you knew had knowledge of a nuclear device that was to be set off in a major US city and would kill hundereds of thousands or more, and that you needed the information they had to try and stop it or save the lives of those people? Would it be OK then?

in emergency situations throughout societies, people have broken the rules blatantly for what they believed was a higher purpose. and when they do, men of good conciounce stand up, and present themselves to the authorities after they "did what they had to do."

3. Who should be afforded the POW status? Is a non-uniformed non-nationally associated fighter a POW when captured, or a terrorist?

anyone we declare we are at war with. be it a nation or whomever. their tactics don't define their prisoner status.

4. Should our armed forces be required to limit the actions they take based on location of the enemy? Example being if the enemy is firing at you from a church or mosque does that become a fair target then? Or are they immune from return fire?

that is a judgement call by the commander in charge. i'm sure variess to the situation.

5. If your enemy does not follw any type of rules of war (treatment of prisoners, treatment of the wounded, torture or death without trial) should you be required to treat them with the rules of war, or could you sentence them to death upon capture?

we are bound by our own standards. lowering our standards only hurts america.

I am just curious how some of you that posted would answer those questions. Personally I think that what we do is not torture. And I think in some cases where lives of US Forces or US Civilians may be saved, real physical torture would be permissible. I also think that combatants that do not follow the rules of war themselves should not be afforded the same. I also feel our armed forces sould have the right and should be required to return fire at all times regardless of location or danger.

What do you think??

i think we probably disagree on some things,,,but that's america.

Thanks for answering..

in emergency situations throughout societies, people have broken the rules blatantly for what they believed was a higher purpose. and when they do, men of good conciounce stand up, and present themselves to the authorities after they "did what they had to do."

So that means yes, its OK in some instances?

anyone we declare we are at war with. be it a nation or whomever. their tactics don't define their prisoner status.

But that is not what the GC says. So should we go by them or not? When do you consider someone a terrorist and someone a war combatant?

we are bound by our own standards. lowering our standards only hurts america.

even if it means loss of American lives??

So that means yes, its OK in some instances?

i'm not sure where you are going with this. i'll try to rephrase for clarity sake, my view....that if someone breaks the rules, they are to be held accountable. that ensures that if someone needs to break the rules, the same standards of accountability apply. we are a nation of laws, not men.

But that is not what the GC says. So should we go by them or not? When do you consider someone a terrorist and someone a war combatant?

ok, is this just a trap to get into a "should the geneva convention be ignored by us because our purpose is higher argument(again)?" actually, as i see it, the supreme court ruled that geneva did apply to al quaeda prisoners. maybe you disagree with that, but regardless, it is not germaine to the conversation we were having in the above posts. i support the rulings of our supreme court and really don't care to re-argue it at this time. not that it's not an important topic, it's just a tangent of what has already been covered ad nauseum.

but just for the record, so ya don't think i'm dodging you or anything, let me say that i stand behind the rulings of the courts on this issue, and i disagree with your premise of what has been defined and how it has been defined. but again, this is america, and that is your right.


even if it means loss of American lives??

you'll need to show me where not lowering our standards has lost american lives. and please don't incite 9/11 or anything. we can go on for months on the hows and why's of 9/11...show me an example outisde of this political hot potato.

i think it is a little improper to try to hijack another person's blog 50 some posts into it to start an entirely new debate. but hey, again, this is america....and if you disagree , that's fine. but maybe ya should have started your own discussion instead as the questions you are asking go well outside the article 3 debate that is taking place here and in congress. and maybe you disagree with that, fine....but i still think it's alittle late to jump in here. i did want to be polite and answer your questions as i saw fit.



have a nice day:)

i'm not sure where you are going with this. i'll try to rephrase for clarity sake, my view....that if someone breaks the rules, they are to be held accountable. that ensures that if someone needs to break the rules, the same standards of accountability apply. we are a nation of laws, not men.

Actually it was a yes or no question, and you did a fine job of dancing around it. Is Torture OK in some instances? Yes or no, pretty simple.

Oh I am so sorry, I thought the original post was about the use and definitions of torture. I must have been mistaken.

As for hijacking someones thread, the idea of a thread is to get peoples input, if you don't want input, don't use a blog that people can respond to. Check the no response button.

Do you want discussion or only that discussion that may not make you think of uncomfortable ideas...and are you the original thread poster?

Actually it was a yes or no question, and you did a fine job of dancing around it. Is Torture OK in some instances? Yes or no, pretty simple.

Nonsense!

dance around it? no i didn't. in fact, looking up, i'm the only one who did answer.

your premise is a bad one...in oversimplifying it and asking is it "ok" to torture, you are essentially asking "should it be legal" and my answer is no. my answer required more explanation , in addition to the answer, because of the overlysimplistic phrasing of the question. you didn't ask "is it necessary in certain situations?" or "should people who torture have any accountability?"

notice my position doesn't change, and despite your nonsense, i am the only one who answered your question. not falling for the ploy is hardly the equivalent.

notice my position doesn't change, and despite your nonsense, i am the only one who answered your question. not falling for the ploy is hardly the equivalent.

Try again.

If it'll save just one American soldier, then hell yes it's okay in some instances.