British troops accused of thousands of torture cases

[Thanas]

The CSA was fighting a war against occupation blah blah blah. The Geneva Convention rights are not based on a subjective assessment of the justice of the cause for which irregulars are fighting, nor should they be.

The CSA actually surrendered at that point already. You have no case.

Ah - so what objective standard do you use to exclude imprisonment but not "non-violent religious abuse"?

The same standard any rational person would choose were he not a massive shithead, that is anything about what is considered legal in western prisons.

So would a civilian, so this is no distinction. Please stop evading and answer the question: do you believe that irregular combatants should receive any different treatment to civilian criminals, and if so, what?

No. If they are fighting outside the laws of war, they would be guilty of murder. That does not justify them being tortured.

Under what circumstance do you think torture to be acceptable?

[Grumman]

...in what war were the Iraq insurgents fighting? Or do you assign to Iraq insurgents the power to declare extralegal wars but not to the KKK? (why?). Regardless, it is not a requirement of the convention that there be a declared war for these rights to apply.

They were fighting a war against occupation, all the more legal because the sovereign nation of Iraq never surrendered in the war.

The CSA was fighting a war against occupation blah blah blah. The Geneva Convention rights are not based on a subjective assessment of the justice of the cause for which irregulars are fighting, nor should they be.

You're a sick bastard, Energiewende. You've got some balls to accuse the Iraqi people of declaring an extralegal war against the United States, when it was the United States that attacked them in their own country under false pretenses.

[energiewende]

The CSA was fighting a war against occupation blah blah blah. The Geneva Convention rights are not based on a subjective assessment of the justice of the cause for which irregulars are fighting, nor should they be.

The CSA actually surrendered at that point already. You have no case.

So did the Iraqi government. The whole point of this law is that rights are extended even to groups that never owed any loyalty to a recognised state

Ah - so what objective standard do you use to exclude imprisonment but not "non-violent religious abuse"?

The same standard any rational person would choose were he not a massive shithead, that is anything about what is considered legal in western prisons.

I get the impression that you do not know how to answer this point and are simply angry that I am disagreeing with you. But think about it like this: if we asked "any rational person" this question in 1900 they would say that mass execution after a drumhead tribunal at most is a reasonable and moral way to proceed: those who don't abide by the law and usages of war do not receive their protection. If we asked someone in the CIA or military intelligence, they might say that secret torture of limitless duration is justified: the ends justify the means. If you ask Stas Bush he might say that irregular combatants should be released with block of C4 and a hundred rounds of ammunition because anyone who fights without the authority of a state is prima facie in the right about whatever his grievance is. There is no consensus on this issue which is precisely why these laws have changed so much and why people still argue about them. Your "any rational person" is an obvious stand-in for your own personal views which seem to be based on nothing at all.

So I ask you again: why is depriving someone of their liberty not torture but insulting their religion is?

So would a civilian, so this is no distinction. Please stop evading and answer the question: do you believe that irregular combatants should receive any different treatment to civilian criminals, and if so, what?

No. If they are fighting outside the laws of war, they would be guilty of murder.

Are you trying to answer "No."? If so, please say, "No."

That does not justify them being tortured.

Under what circumstance do you think torture to be acceptable?

I don't know, since we can't agree on what torture is.

You're a sick bastard, Energiewende. You've got some balls to accuse the Iraqi people of declaring an extralegal war against the United States, when it was the United States that attacked them in their own country under false pretenses.

What's the telephone number for The Iraqi People? There were numerous factions that formed extralegal militias in the Iraq war; what could be argued to be continuation forces of the former Ba'athist government were only one of them, and were not the most numerous, not the one that enjoyed the most support, not the one that controlled the most territory. Your argument at most gives them special privilege, but not any of the others. However, if you want to argue that, do you seriously refuse to recognise the current government, and believe that restoring the Ba'ath Party dictatorship would be the legitimate course?

[Thanas]

So did the Iraqi government. The whole point of this law is that rights are extended even to groups that never owed any loyalty to a recognised state

When did the Iraqi Government sign a surrender?

Also, how is a civil war comparable to a war of aggression?

I get the impression that you do not know how to answer this point and are simply angry that I am disagreeing with you.

And I get the impression that you are an obfuscating torture apologist.

But think about it like this: if we asked "any rational person" this question in 1900 they would say that mass execution after a drumhead tribunal at most is a reasonable and moral way to proceed: those who don't abide by the law and usages of war do not receive their protection.

We are not in 1900s and the law was different back then.

If we asked someone in the CIA or military intelligence, they might say that secret torture of limitless duration is justified: the ends justify the means.

Good thing that murderous secret agencies are not the ones setting the law either then. The opinions of torturers do not matter.

If you ask Stas Bush he might say that irregular combatants should be released with block of C4 and a hundred rounds of ammunition because anyone who fights without the authority of a state is prima facie in the right about whatever his grievance is.

You are even more of an ignoramus than I thought you were if you think this is Stas' position.

There is no consensus on this issue which is precisely why these laws have changed so much and why people still argue about them. Your "any rational person" is an obvious stand-in for your own personal views which seem to be based on nothing at all.

Yes there is. The only ones who disagree here are those who support torture. Their opinions do not matter. Did you somehow sleep through the 2000s and missed the entire discussion?

So I ask you again: why is depriving someone of their liberty not torture but insulting their religion is?

Are you saying insulting their religions is the only thing the british thugs did?

Are you trying to answer "No."? If so, please say, "No."

First, prove the people tortured here were insurgents. Given that most of them were released seems to suggest that they are either innocent or that the people who caught them thought they were supposed to be free.

I don't know, since we can't agree on what torture is.

Are you trying to say torture is acceptable? If so, please say so.

What's the telephone number for The Iraqi People? There were numerous factions that formed extralegal militias in the Iraq war; what could be argued to be continuation forces of the former Ba'athist government were only one of them, and were not the most numerous, not the one that enjoyed the most support, not the one that controlled the most territory. Your argument at most gives them special privilege, but not any of the others. However, if you want to argue that, do you seriously refuse to recognise the current government, and believe that restoring the Ba'ath Party dictatorship would be the legitimate course?

Are you trying to claim the Iraqi people have no right to resist an unlawful occupation? Like, can I steel your things and you have no right to interfere? Is this seriously something you claim?

[Napoleon the Clown]

Torture is inflicting suffering upon an individual beyond what is necessary to cease actions that will cause immediate harm. Getting tased fucking hurts and I'm sure that it could be argued as causing suffering. However, justified use of a taser does not constitute torture because justified use is to prevent someone from causing harm at that immediate point of time. Inflicting suffering to get information, however, is torture because it most certainly is not stopping the individual from causing harm. And it will not prevent future harm, either. Torture does not get reliable information. People will say what they think you want to hear when you're making them suffer, not what is true.

My question is this: Is it ever acceptable to deprive someone of sleep to try and get something from them? Is it ever acceptable to prevent them from using the restroom when not in a situation where it could cause immediate harm? Is it ever acceptable to force someone to listen to music that is loud enough to cause hearing damage? Verbal abuse? Water boarding? Electric shocks at levels sufficient to cause pain or injury, provided the individual is not in a position where they pose an immediate physical danger? What about denying someone food? Medication that they need to live? Medication that they need to not be in pain? Medication that they need to function? Is it acceptable to force drugs upon someone as a means to force compliance? Is it ever acceptable to provide an individual only with food that their religion forbids?

I can go on, but I think these are some things that are pretty clearly torture.

[loomer]

Let me put this to you, Energewiende.

How do you personally define torture? And, using that definition, do you think there are valid times or uses for it?

[K. A. Pital]

If you ask Stas Bush he might say that irregular combatants should be released with block of C4 and a hundred rounds of ammunition because anyone who fights without the authority of a state is prima facie in the right about whatever his grievance is.

And of course you can back this outrageously stupid strawman up, right? Because I said irregular combatants or opposing soldiers should be totally let go with blocks of C4, just do a search on the forum, right? Not that I argued in favor of humane detention, no - I said they should be let go.

[Alkaloid]

I'm kind of curious as to why we are using the immediately post civil war KKK as the bench mark for irregular forces and not, say, Spanish partisans (who, for the record were operating considerably before the American Civil war and still do not get the title of the first modern irregular force) resisting Napoleons armies or the French resistance? Its not like a pre requisite for being an irregular is massive racism, enei, however much you might want to paint it that way.

[K. A. Pital]

Why not Garibaldi's redshirts, then? I mean, I see no real reason to start with the KKK, but even if we did, does being a Klansman mean you have no rights, you're not human and should be tortured? That logic is simply not there. Even the Nazis deserved not to be tortured.

[Thanas]

I'm kind of curious as to why we are using the immediately post civil war KKK as the bench mark for irregular forces and not, say, Spanish partisans (who, for the record were operating considerably before the American Civil war and still do not get the title of the first modern irregular force) resisting Napoleons armies or the French resistance? Its not like a pre requisite for being an irregular is massive racism, enei, however much you might want to paint it that way.

Spanish partisans are the closest you can get to a historical parallel but the laws of war were obviously different. But this is all part of Energiewende's tactics. Note how he immediately clarified everyone tortured as people who resisted the occupation.