• 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!

Would you call for prosecution if an Iraqi used torture to save a life?

Would you prosecute this guy?

  • yes, he is a torturer

    Votes: 2 40.0%
  • no, he saved some lives

    Votes: 1 20.0%
  • other

    Votes: 2 40.0%

  • Total voters
    5

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
34,118
Reaction score
32,654
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Let's say it comes out in the news that an innocent ordinary Iraqi guy heard about a US attack against his house because the army heard wrong information that the Iraqi guy was a terrorist. So this guy and some friends grabs a US soldier and tortures him to get the information by waterboarding him or worse. In came out there actually was an attack planned. So the Iraqi stops the attack against his house, because through the torture he was able to get the information he needed, and was able to clear his name and stop the attack and save his life and his families.


So, would you demand the "torturers" be tried for their "crimes"?

I mean this in all seriousness.
 
What's with all these torture threads?

I would say yes, only if the Iraqi laws say that torture is illegal. If it is illegal, the person should be prosecuted. Simple follow-through of the justice system.
 
I am not an Iraqi, nor am I subject to Iraqi law. The question as such is of no consequence to me personally.
 
Let's say it comes out in the news that an innocent ordinary Iraqi guy heard about a US attack against his house because the army heard wrong information that the Iraqi guy was a terrorist. So this guy and some friends grabs a US soldier and tortures him to get the information by waterboarding him or worse. In came out there actually was an attack planned. So the Iraqi stops the attack against his house, because through the torture he was able to get the information he needed, and was able to clear his name and stop the attack and save his life and his families.


So, would you demand the "torturers" be tried for their "crimes"?

I mean this in all seriousness.

Waterboarding isn't tourture, even when it's a US soldier being waterboarded.

Assuming actual torure was being used, yes I would call for prosecution.

Assuming actual torure was being used AND the attack was unjust, I would call for prosecution bacause I'm on America's side and will use any means to protect my team from the other.
 
Waterboarding isn't tourture...

That's not what the law says.

From: Waterboarding is Illegal - Washington University Law Review
In his 2007 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee considering his nomination to be Attorney General of the United States, Judge Michael Mukasey refused to address the legality of waterboarding.[1] In my opinion there is no reasonable dispute about this matter. The laws of the United States make waterboarding unlawful in no uncertain terms.[2]

There is no doubt that waterboarding is illegal under the plain language of each of these four statutes. When it is practiced in other countries, the State Department characterizes waterboarding as “torture.”[46] Waterboarding inflicts “severe pain and suffering” on its victims, both physically and mentally, and therefore it is torture within the meaning of the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act.[47] It inflicts “serious pain and suffering” upon its victims, and it qualifies as “serious physical abuse,” therefore it is “cruel or inhuman treatment” within the meaning of the War Crimes Act.[48] Finally, American courts have ruled that when prisoners in the United States are subjected to waterboarding, it is a violation of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore it would be a violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000dd and 2000dd-0 prohibiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.[49]

Even before these laws were adopted the United States considered waterboarding to be torture and a criminal offense.[53] After World War II, the United States prosecuted and convicted a number of Japanese officers for torturing captured American servicemen by waterboarding.[54] Great Britain prosecuted another group of Japanese officers who had tortured British soldiers using this technique, and sentenced them to death.[55] Over a century ago, the United States prosecuted and convicted American military officers who used waterboarding against prisoners in the Philippines.[56]

Furthermore, there are instrumental arguments against the use of waterboarding. First, torture is neither an efficient nor an effective means of gathering intelligence.[60] Second, waterboarding prisoners violates our treaty obligations, thus offending our allies in the War on Terror.[61] Third, by engaging in this practice ourselves, we invite our enemies to treat our captured soldiers likewise,[62] and if our government adopts the position that waterboarding is legal, then we will have given up the right to prosecute our enemies for subjecting our soldiers to this treatment.[63] Finally, in the event that we were to obtain useful information from a prisoner by means of waterboarding, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute the prisoner because coerced confessions[64] and any evidence obtained by means of a coerced confession[65] are constitutionally inadmissible, despite provisions of the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act which purport to preserve the admissibility of coerced confessions.[66]

The policy considerations which militate against the use of waterboarding are compelling, but they are not relevant to assessing the legality of the practice. Regardless of its utility or lack of utility as a method of interrogation, waterboarding violates both the letter and the spirit of the Torture Act, the War Crimes Act, and the Prohibition against Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment. Accordingly, waterboarding is illegal.

But, I hold no illusions that the law would sway your opinion.

But, it is still the law.
 
Last edited:
That's not what the law says.
Okay, 1) that's bull **** and you know it 2) give us an accurate link 3) I think you live to get your ass kicked on this issue, give it up dude.

Now, as to the question at hand, I voted other. What treaties do they hold? that is the first question. Question 2: Who's life is being saved? (civilian, soldier, war criminal?) 3) what are their internal laws and treaty overlap? 4) is the overall action of some good?
 
Waterboarding isn't tourture, even when it's a US soldier being waterboarded.

So were we wrong when we convicted the Japanese of war crimes for waterboarding our POWs during WWII?
 
So were we wrong when we convicted the Japanese of war crimes for waterboarding our POWs during WWII?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I would dare speculate that something can be a war crime and not torture.
 
If someone takes a US Soldier and tortures them, we should find that person and kill them.

Easy answer.
 
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I would dare speculate that something can be a war crime and not torture.

One of the practices by which we convicted the Japanese for after WW II was waterboarding. It was considered wrong for them to have to do it, and it was something by which we could properly punish them for. It was considered torture, and thus included as such under the war crimes brought against the Japanese government. Has waterboarding changed? Or were we wrong to have prosecuted the Japanese for it?
 
One of the practices by which we convicted the Japanese for after WW II was waterboarding. It was considered wrong for them to have to do it, and it was something by which we could properly punish them for. It was considered torture, and thus included as such under the war crimes brought against the Japanese government. Has waterboarding changed? Or were we wrong to have prosecuted the Japanese for it?

So far I don't know that this even happened. I have only your say-so and since you called SCOTUS decision "usless philociphy" on another thread there isn't much credability behind your word.
 
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I would dare speculate that something can be a war crime and not torture.

Tokyo Trials.

And yes, waterboarding is illegal. And is torture, no matter how much you want to change the definition of law, its still the law.
 
One of the practices by which we convicted the Japanese for after WW II was waterboarding. It was considered wrong for them to have to do it, and it was something by which we could properly punish them for. It was considered torture, and thus included as such under the war crimes brought against the Japanese government. Has waterboarding changed? Or were we wrong to have prosecuted the Japanese for it?

Ikari,

He knows all that. I suspect he even agrees with it. But, he can't give even an inch or his team would crucify him. Jerry likes to act dumb (act?) to frustrate those who oppose his opinion to the point that they give up.

Ain't happening, tho.

You can always tell when a good point has been made against him, and the others, because they then go into that "Huh, what's that?" act.

Good points!
 
Tokyo Trials.

And yes, waterboarding is illegal. And is torture, no matter how much you want to change the definition of law, its still the law.

I like how you project assumptions into what I said with your responce as though I actualy hold those views. Nice.
 
I like how you project assumptions into what I said with your responce as though I actualy hold those views. Nice.

I can't tell, your exact words were:

Waterboarding isn't tourture, even when it's a US soldier being waterboarded.

By that statement alone there is not way you could uphold the position that waterboard is torture, and is illegal. Not to mention the fact we killed folks for doing the very same thing.
 
On the subject of the tread, is the question if the people for torture also think it's ok that foreigners torture americans. Their can be many diffrent situation, their foreigners can compare it to torture terrorist suspect.

For example if an american is accused of sexual abuse young children, should he be torture so the brothel can be find and the children saved? Narcotic trade posses a national threath in many countries because of the violence and corruption it's leads to so should american suspected of trading with drugs and to know drug lords be tortured? You can also see at mexico their the drug war is destabilize the entire country and more people have been killed in the war then it did during 9/11, so should an american suspected of trading guns and also to know the drug lord, be tortured for information?
 
On the subject of the tread, is the question if the people for torture also think it's ok that foreigners torture americans. Their can be many diffrent situation, their foreigners can compare it to torture terrorist suspect.

For example if an american is accused of sexual abuse young children, should he be torture so the brothel can be find and the children saved? Narcotic trade posses a national threath in many countries because of the violence and corruption it's leads to so should american suspected of trading with drugs and to know drug lords be tortured? You can also see at mexico their the drug war is destabilize the entire country and more people have been killed in the war then it did during 9/11, so should an american suspected of trading guns and also to know the drug lord, be tortured for information?
My opinion was based on the variables system as well, great detail!
 
By that statement alone there is not way you could uphold the position that waterboard is torture, and is illegal.

I would have penned a humble conession to the point and stood corected for all to see, but the post giving the corection was also insulting, and I don't bow to that.

If you don't allow your oponant room to be wrong, don't expect them to admit it.

Not to mention the fact we killed folks for doing the very same thing.

Do you mean trops storming in and shooting or do you mean a death sentence handed down by a court?
 
So far I don't know that this even happened. I have only your say-so and since you called SCOTUS decision "usless philociphy" on another thread there isn't much credability behind your word.

If only there were some form of internet type device which had logged information on it. But hey, I won't give a link since you probably wouldn't trust such a link. I mean...I totally know nothing and one disagreement in one thread about one subject proves I know nothing about anything. Right? :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom