America admits suspects died in interrogations

[Gandalf]

Are the US going out of their way to break rules now?

The Geneva Conventions against torture do not apply to everyone, Gandalf. Sea Skimmer has already noted this.

Sorry. My bad.

[Kuja]

I'm not surprised in the slightest, but I am happy to see America's moral superiority to the terrorists rapidly diminishing.

Yup. It's only a matter of weeks before American families begin strapping bombs to their kids' chests and sending them out to kill the infidels.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Is anyone surprised by this?

No. I hope they died horribly.

[theski]

Slowly and horribly

[Nathan F]

Yup, the Taliban never signed the Geneva Convention, therefore, we do not have to follow it when dealing with the cowardly bastards.

[weemadando]

FUCK THIS.

I still am recovering from the 3rd degree burns from the Geneva convention threads on ASVS from a YEAR AGO.

I'm not surprised in the slightest, but I am happy to see America's moral superiority to the terrorists rapidly diminishing.

Why are you happy about that? I thought that you'd be upset!

I am upset. But I'm happy. I have no opinion but I feel the need to voice it.

"I'm happy and angry!"

I'm emotionally detatched. And now, my head will explode for added effect.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The rules of warfare apply to the so called "civilized world", of which the U.S is part. There's no need to tell anybody that the taliban, Saddam and alike are blood thirsty savages who torture and kill their victims.

We like to think we're better than them.

That includes obeying to certain rules of conduct and engagement, knowing that the other side will not follow them.

When the war is over, we then proceed to judge them as criminals, warlords, rapists, murderers and genocidal maniacs.

There will be no rules in this contest, just slaughter until one side is victorious. This is a contest between fundamentalism and enlightened reason - And for the later to be victorious we must harness the forces of retributive nationalism to match the full fervour of religious fundamentalism among our peoples and bring unparalleled fury down upon the Islamofascist nations, until they are taught to desist from their actions by the sheer terror of opposing us.

The rules are nice conventions to make war clean - But they're only relevant when both sides follow them. As far as I'm concerned we've had no moral obligation to obey the Geneva Convention against the Islamofascists since 9/11.

This is a war by civilized countries to slaughter barbarians. You treat barbarians just like that - Barbarians. Creatures to be slaughtered. The average Taliban soldier was a rapist, a foul creature that roamed over the mountains of that nation abusing it, plundering the livlihood of the farmers and taking the women of the minorities to be sold as sex-slaves, all while upholding a brutal "pure Islamic" doctrine that demanded insane and sickening repression of every form, and Nazi-like treatment of what religious minorities existed still within the country.

I don't even care if they were but mere foot soldiers. They deserved to die and they're dead and I hope they remembered the agony of their victims while they died. Now we're going to go ahead and take out the Republican Guard, which is essentially the same as the Taleban in outlook but given uniforms and fancy equipment - And not all the wimpering, simpering idiots in Europe can stop us, not for the sake of their oil deals or their arms deals or their bleeding hearts.

Sometimes a lot of blood needs to be spilled to make the world a better place, and sometimes it needs to be done in a very uncivilized fashion. That doesn't, however, change the ultimate result from being good. It simply has to be done because there's no choice. The Islamofascists removed the choice from us on 9/11 and now they're going to regret it, until the last one of them is dead. Then the rest of the Muslim world can join with modern civilization.

Your choice now is to either join with us in doing it or get the fuck out of the way. I'm sick of this moral simpering. It's a time for action, not musing on the right or wrong of every little thing that happens. That, too, died on 9/11.

[Cosmic Average]

There will be no rules in this contest, just slaughter until one side is victorious. This is a contest between fundamentalism and enlightened reason -

I'm sorry, but in what part does torturing someone to death fit into 'enlightened reason'? Perhaps in your definition of reason and enlightment it fits perfectly, along side rape and genocide..

[Gandalf]

There will be no rules in this contest, just slaughter until one side is victorious. This is a contest between fundamentalism and enlightened reason - And for the later to be victorious we must harness the forces of retributive nationalism to match the full fervour of religious fundamentalism among our peoples and bring unparalleled fury down upon the Islamofascist nations, until they are taught to desist from their actions by the sheer terror of opposing us.

Isn't this just fundamentalism versus fundamentalism with better PR?

[Kuja]

I'm sorry, but in what part does torturing someone to death fit into 'enlightened reason'? Perhaps in your definition of reason and enlightment it fits perfectly, along side rape and genocide..

Does the US accept only one religion? And only one interpretation of that religion? No.

Does the US advocate destruction of all those who don't fall in line with its views? No. (rather, France and Germany are mercilessly bashed by the likes of Leno and O'Brien. )

Does the US use suicide bombings on civilian populations? No.

Does the US commandeer civilian planes and fly them into unsuspecting targets? No.

Does the US execute dissidents and criminals of any kind, on the spot, with no trial? No.

Does the US torture terrorists? Yes.

Does the US imprison those who threaten it? Yes.

Does the US torture and slaughter every single terrorist it captures? No.

Now, CA, think about the differences between the actions of the US and Al-Quida. Think HARD.

[weemadando]

Does the US accept only one religion? And only one interpretation of that religion? No.

No arguement there.

Doe

s the US advocate destruction of all those who don't fall in line with its views? No. (rather, France and Germany are mercilessly bashed by the likes of Leno and O'Brien. )

Except for the political and economic pressures, the international bribery and blackmail...

Does the US use suicide bombings on civilian populations? No.

No... You use B-52s.

Does the US commandeer civilian planes and fly them into unsuspecting targets? No.

No, because you already have an airforce to hit unsuspecting targets.

Does the US execute dissidents and criminals of any kind, on the spot, with no trial? No.

No, but you do have the option to in some circumstances.

Does the US torture terrorists? Yes.

Yup.

Does the US imprison those who threaten it? Yes.

And those who happen to disagree with it.

Does the US torture and slaughter every single terrorist it captures? No.

No, but it does hold them without trial in facilities and with practices contrary to the Geneva Convention.

Now, CA, think about the differences between the actions of the US and Al-Quida. Think HARD.

Yes, the actions are different, but the net result is the same. Increased human suffering.

[Kuja]

Except for the political and economic pressures, the international bribery and blackmail...

Not the same as mass murder, wouldn't you say?

No... You use B-52s.

Really? Tell me, which large civilian populations (such as buildings in the middile of an urban area) have B-52s deliberately hit without any kind of warning?

No, because you already have an airforce to hit unsuspecting targets.

We use our airforce to hit unsuspecting MILITARY and TERRORIST targets. They used their planes to slam into CIVILIAN targets. Difference.

No, but you do have the option to in some circumstances.

Ah, so the pared-down POSSIBILITY of such a case automatically makes the US the same as a dictatorship?

And those who happen to disagree with it.

Yet mysteriously, we hear news of portest rallies almost every day...hmmm.

No, but it does hold them without trial in facilities and with practices contrary to the Geneva Convention.

Terrorists are not part of the Geneva Convention. If they feel free to act outside its dictates, then their opponenets should be able to as well.

However, we are talking about two different beasts. This whole thread is about a PAIR of men dying during interrogations. Al-Quida killed THOUSANDS on 9/11. If you ask me, I think the US and Al-Quida seem to have SLIGHTLY different views of the world.

Al-Quide thinks nothing of slaughtering 'infidels' by the hundreds.

Some Americans get their panties in a twist over terrorists being held in somewhat less-than-sanitary conditions in Cuba.

Yes, the actions are different, but the net result is the same. Increased human suffering.

Increased human suffing, but on FAR different levels. If you think a pair of terrorists dying during interrogation is just as morally reprehensable as 9/11, you need to have your head examinded.

[weemadando]

Wooo!

Praise to IGGY for not going hook line and sinker into the flame bait.

Well done that man.

[ArmorPierce]

I think them being tortured to death is going way overboard. If they had a trial and were executed that would be great but they were beaten to death. Not that fun.

[Kuja]

Wooo!

Praise to IGGY for not going hook line and sinker into the flame bait.

Well done that man.

*grin* Despite my general insanity, I am a rational person at most times. In addition, I was debating politics w/my dad before coming online, so I was in the mood for a debate.

Its just when people act like assholes that I start flaming.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm sorry, but in what part does torturing someone to death fit into 'enlightened reason'? Perhaps in your definition of reason and enlightment it fits perfectly, along side rape and genocide..

Because it is done for a rational objective. Reason does not equate to pacifism. Quite the contrary.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Isn't this just fundamentalism versus fundamentalism with better PR?

No. Fundamentalism means, literally, following the fundamentals of a religion. Which for Islam, of course, is the brutal Sheriat Law. What I'm talking about is directing the national identity to the cause where it is needed and having the people exert the maximum effort to fight this; that the nation-state, a thing of the people, created in the enlightenment and based on the rule of law (which is not foreign to torturing the enemy; rather, that it provides the rule of law for its own citizens, and that defending them, even with such extreme measures, is the highest application of its duty) and on the application of scientific principles and concepts order the world rather than absolute commandments of some book, should triumph over religious fanaticism. And do to this we must exert whatever should be exerted. In this case, that might require a great deal of blood to be spilled indeed. But if it is necessary, than so be it, for the cause is just.

[Sokar]

And I'm supposed to feel bad because some shit-bag terrorist wanna-bes died under interrogation.......riiiight.

Firstly, these scum forfeited their rights to protection under Geneva when they entered the service of a terrorist , non-state, actor. Geneva ONLY apples to state combatants in a declared war, who have also signed the Convention and agreed to follow its stipulations on the rules of war.

Second, considering that the stakes of this particular conflict are higher than any in our history, I whole heartedly support our actions in extracting the maximum amount of truthful information from these dogs. Make on mistake folks were in a race , if we win peace, security, and puppies for eveyone. If we lose, someone somewhere eats a lunch of Sarin, VX or 100ktons of nuclear hellfire.

Finally, on the idea that we should somehow sieze the moral high ground, and that using torture somehow 'brings us to their level'. I say Bullshit, civilization and enlightenment is just a mask we wear so that we can call ourselves a 'civilized people' and that somehow were better than others, but when push comes to shove , were all barbarians and beasts, it just depends on who you get to write the history books in the end.

[ArmorPierce]

Because it is done for a rational objective. Reason does not equate to pacifism. Quite the contrary.

But if they're dead, you won't be getting any infor from them...

[RedImperator]

I don't like this one bit. I prefer to think the United States always takes the high road, the moral way, even when it might be more expedient to do things the other way.

However, I also don't like it when people hijack airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers. International affairs are too often the choice between the lesser of two evils, and always taking the high road is something they do in Star Trek, not real life.

[Gil Hamilton]

Except that torture doesn't work very well. People will just tell you anything that they think will make it stop. What it boils down is that torture will just get you alot of information that the person being interrogated thinks that you want to hear and very little relevant information.

On the topic of the Geneva Conventions, yes they don't technically apply to groups that aren't nations, but they should apply anyway. The whole point of signing the Geneva Convention is it's a code of civilized warfare that the people signing are supposed to actually believe in. Violating the Geneva Conventions just because they don't technically apply defeats the whole spirit of the Conventions in the first place. We signed them because we believe in it, that we believe that torture is wrong and something civilized nations do not do. If we don't actually care to follow the code that we claim to believe in, that makes us hypocrites. We might as well just throw the Geneva Conventions out, if we don't really believe in them.


Duchess: It's a damn good thing that people like you are few and have no power (at least have no power in Western nations, you'd fit right in in less civilized nations), because you'd have us becoming just like our enemies with your disgusting and immoral philosophy that the end always justifies the means, no matter how terrible the means are. The whole point of this damn war is ideals and that our ideals are correct and true and cannot be destroyed by people who support religious fascism. But what is the point of having ideals at all if you throw them away and become just like the people who seek to destroy those them. Fact is, we are better than the fundementalist garbage that would have us enslaved and our ideals are that much better. We don't need to sink to their level, because our ideals are correct and true. That is the greatest defeat we can deal to them, that all their bullshit didn't cause us to lose our civility and that we crushed them through superiority rather than barbarism. No, they don't deserve a civilized war and deserve a horrible death. But not at the expense of our principles. If we give up our ideals, we might as well give up, because it demonstrates more surely than anything else that our ideals aren't really correct and true.

So tough tittie, Duchess, you can loudly call for atrocities online, but it doesn't matter because saner people are in charge who remember that we've got ideals and standards to live up to. Boo hoo for you, you can take your inferior and immoral philosophy and shove it somewhere dank and moist.

[Stormbringer]

Is anyone surprised by this?

No. I hope they died horribly.

I'm with Marina on this one. I hope the fuckers died miserably and in prolonged agnoy. Frankly, I wish we'd brought back some the Inquisition's nastier toys for the job.

[kojikun]

Torture has and will always be one of the tools of us evil sadists.

Oh wait, you don't mean dungeons and whips and chains.. irk

[RadiO]

If this really is now a war of national survivial (for every nation threatened by terror) and we can just glibly justify any action as self-defence (even criminal manslaughter, because that's what this is. The men were scumbags, but they were unintentionally beaten to death. That surely must be manslaughter under civil law)...
Then what is the frigging point in any of this? What is the point of law? What is the point of compassion? What is the point of any structured system of morals? Ultimately, what is the point in living if you're only going to obey the most basic principles of society when it's in your interests?
What's to stop the Police from pulling the same trick? Oh wait, this happened overseas in a military dicatorship, not on American soil. So that's all legal and above board, and we can torture and kill prisoners but only if we deport them first. Super.
I might as well just shoot the next bastard who cuts me up at a junction because, hey fuck, he's threatening my life with his pisspoor driving. Then I can dig up his granny's bones and indulge in a spot of necrophillia. No reason, I just feel like it, and who's going to stop me?

[ArmorPierce]

And why is it that we get pissed all over when other nations that aren't in the Geneva Convention uses torture on its prisoners and say how they are violating human rights? If we are doing the same thing we don't really have the right to say anything. Why exactly should have they been even more tortured to death than they had been already? Don't give me 'they deserved it' cause you are torturing them while not actually knowing if they actually know anything. What would you say if the same happened to Americans on foreign soil?