• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Since the year 2000, has the USA tortured?

Since 2000 - Has The USA Tortured Anyone?

  • I'm a registered "D" - no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not a US citizen - no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    20

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
30,891
Reaction score
19,301
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Has the USA (any recognized faction, sub-segment, branch, affiliation, or official) condoned the use of, or participated, or carried out any form of "torture" on anyone since the turn of the most recent century?

Whether the "victim" was legally or illegally detained, charged or not, stood trial or not, considered a terrorist, enemy combatant, or even a US citizen, has torture been used by the USofA as a tool or some other form of punishment?

Is the USofA guilty of using torture in any kind of scenario as the definition of torture is widely known?

Or, to put it another way, is the USofA ever justified in using using "techniques" that the majority of others in the world consider "torture",

Since the year 2000 - has the USofA tortured anyone? If you answer "yes" - do you consider it justifiable or criminal?
If you answered "no" - is it because your definition of torture is somewhat different than most others people's definition? As in, "relative to what the terrorists have been doing, there's nothing the USofA could do that would be worse or more inhumane."
 
Under the legal definition of torture the US has not authorized torture on anyone since 2000, this is not my opinion but a simple fact.
 
Under the legal definition of torture the US has not authorized torture on anyone since 2000, this is not my opinion but a simple fact.

Would you care to provide that "legal definition"?
 
Sadly, yes.
 
Has the USA (any recognized faction, sub-segment, branch, affiliation, or official) condoned the use of, or participated, or carried out any form of "torture" on anyone since the turn of the most recent century?

Whether the "victim" was legally or illegally detained, charged or not, stood trial or not, considered a terrorist, enemy combatant, or even a US citizen, has torture been used by the USofA as a tool or some other form of punishment?

Is the USofA guilty of using torture in any kind of scenario as the definition of torture is widely known?

Or, to put it another way, is the USofA ever justified in using using "techniques" that the majority of others in the world consider "torture",

Since the year 2000 - has the USofA tortured anyone? If you answer "yes" - do you consider it justifiable or criminal?
If you answered "no" - is it because your definition of torture is somewhat different than most others people's definition? As in, "relative to what the terrorists have been doing, there's nothing the USofA could do that would be worse or more inhumane."

In the strict sense of the words the answer is "no" with a high degree of probability. The government seems clearly not to ave mandated "torture". That does not mean that none were tortured. What seems certain, however, is that the level of allowed force was very much breached and that there are people that thus broke the law, when they were working for the government and that have not been put on trail. They do not seem to have been pardoned either. That is definitely bad, because the executive is bound by law as is the judiciary. They are not allowed to apply the law as they like and, when they do, it should be a ground for immediate and mandatory impeachment.
 
Bush II said no

PANAMA CITY, Panama -- President Bush on Monday defended U.S. interrogation practices and called the treatment of terrorism suspects lawful. "We do not torture," Bush declared in response to reports of secret CIA prisons overseas.

Bush supported an effort spearheaded by Vice President Dick Cheney to block or modify a proposed Senate-passed ban on torture.

Bush III on torture
"I was clear throughout this campaign and was clear throughout this transition that under my administration the United States does not torture," Obama said, when asked at the news conference whether he would continue the Bush administration's policy of harsh interrogation. "We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals."


and moreover, Clinton did not have sex with that woman.

It all depends on your definitions.
 
Has the USA (any recognized faction, sub-segment, branch, affiliation, or official) condoned the use of, or participated, or carried out any form of "torture" on anyone since the turn of the most recent century?

Whether the "victim" was legally or illegally detained, charged or not, stood trial or not, considered a terrorist, enemy combatant, or even a US citizen, has torture been used by the USofA as a tool or some other form of punishment?

Is the USofA guilty of using torture in any kind of scenario as the definition of torture is widely known?

Or, to put it another way, is the USofA ever justified in using using "techniques" that the majority of others in the world consider "torture",

Since the year 2000 - has the USofA tortured anyone? If you answer "yes" - do you consider it justifiable or criminal?
If you answered "no" - is it because your definition of torture is somewhat different than most others people's definition? As in, "relative to what the terrorists have been doing, there's nothing the USofA could do that would be worse or more inhumane."

How is this a poll? It's a fact, they already admitted to doing it. Yes, we've tortured people and no, we shouldn't have. If you become a monster to fight monsters the world will just be full of monsters.
 
Under the legal definition of torture the US has not authorized torture on anyone since 2000, this is not my opinion but a simple fact.
Schultz-I-Know-Nothing.jpg
 
Has the USA (any recognized faction, sub-segment, branch, affiliation, or official) condoned the use of, or participated, or carried out any form of "torture" on anyone since the turn of the most recent century?

Whether the "victim" was legally or illegally detained, charged or not, stood trial or not, considered a terrorist, enemy combatant, or even a US citizen, has torture been used by the USofA as a tool or some other form of punishment?

Is the USofA guilty of using torture in any kind of scenario as the definition of torture is widely known?

Or, to put it another way, is the USofA ever justified in using using "techniques" that the majority of others in the world consider "torture",

Since the year 2000 - has the USofA tortured anyone? If you answer "yes" - do you consider it justifiable or criminal?
If you answered "no" - is it because your definition of torture is somewhat different than most others people's definition? As in, "relative to what the terrorists have been doing, there's nothing the USofA could do that would be worse or more inhumane."

Haven't we already hashed this out in the last couple weeks?
 
How is this a poll? It's a fact, they already admitted to doing it. Yes, we've tortured people and no, we shouldn't have.

Apparently not everybody agrees with you RabidAlpaca. See below.

It all depends on your definitions.

In the strict sense of the words the answer is "no"

Under the legal definition of torture the US has not authorized torture on anyone since 2000, this is not my opinion but a simple fact.
 
DAMMIT - the second "D" choice in the poll should be for a "no" vote.

Can a MOD fix that???
 
Under the legal definition of torture the US has not authorized torture on anyone since 2000, this is not my opinion but a simple fact.

Correction:

The US has authorized torture but slapped a different label on it.
 
Under the legal definition of torture the US has not authorized torture on anyone since 2000, this is not my opinion but a simple fact.
Correction:

The US has authorized torture but slapped a different label on it.

Isn't that spiffy? Call it something else and you don't have to admit anything.
 
Yes, the US tortured...
 
Isn't that spiffy? Call it something else and you don't have to admit anything.

Yep.

Next we'll start assassinations and call it "enhanced impeachment." Totally legal.

I love how it's all the "can't trust the government to do anything" types who are 100% faithful to the government when the government says "this is a bad person so they don't have any rights."
 
Yep.

Next we'll start assassinations and call it "enhanced impeachment." Totally legal.

I love how it's all the "can't trust the government to do anything" types who are 100% faithful to the government when the government says "this is a bad person so they don't have any rights."
It does seem that way.
 
Which might also suggest, rather strongly, that the US still does. Right?

More than likely, yes.

Or, if not, then we outsource the job to our "friends" in nations that have no qualms about torture.
 
"Enhanced impeachment" I like that one. I'll put that in a category of political phrases to remember, along with "plausible deniability."
 
I find it laughable this is a poll. Clearly yes.
 
I guess it's really an opinion... because what is and is not torture is an opinion. Is jail torture? Most people don't think so, but it sure does put a lot of people in psychological grief. Jail in bad conditions? As opposed to jail with big screen TV and comfortable beds and free education. Restricting freedom torture? Constant interrogation for hours every day?
There are many things that inflict negative stuff on a human being... we draw the line where we want to and beyond that line is considered torture or un-necessary torture.

According to many the US has tortured. So I guess that's what matters.
 
I guess it's really an opinion... because what is and is not torture is an opinion. Is jail torture? Most people don't think so, but it sure does put a lot of people in psychological grief. Jail in bad conditions? As opposed to jail with big screen TV and comfortable beds and free education. Restricting freedom torture? Constant interrogation for hours every day?
There are many things that inflict negative stuff on a human being... we draw the line where we want to and beyond that line is considered torture or un-necessary torture.

According to many the US has tortured. So I guess that's what matters.

Some people thought exterminating the Jews was wrong and others thought it was necessary I guess that's just a matter of opinion :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom