• 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!

Should the Hutaree militia be waterboarded?

Should the Hutaree militia be waterboarded

  • I am for waterboarding Al Quaeda and Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 7 19.4%

  • I am for waterboarding Al Quaeda terrorists but not Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 3 8.3%

  • I am for waterboarding Hutaree terrorists but not Al Quaeda terrorists

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • I am against waterboarding Al Quaeda and Hutaree terrorists

    Votes: 24 66.7%
  • Total voters
    36
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I was refering to the link in the link, dude.
Click to expand...

How does a verbatim quote, in its entirety, take liberties with context? Probably the same way a simple question is a "gotcha."
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
And I uhm Just answered it, again. If you were REALLY trying to move the conversation foward as you claim, you would have, instead you posted this snotty retort.
Click to expand...

So this was "snotty" now?

Drop the attitude or come back later when you've had your coffee.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Do people outside of the U.S. have natural rights?
Click to expand...

If natural rights exist (and I believe the do), then by definition they would have those same rights.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You forgot this part where it defines the "jurisdiction" as people not in the US, are not in said jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Jurisdiction doesn't always equal geography. It includes any circumstance where a person finds themselves in the care of the US Government.
For example P.O.Ws could be said to be in your jurisdiction even though it is illegal to ship them out of theatre and you may not be the soverign power of the territory they are detained in.

In the vernacular, once some bugger gets their collar felt, you can't stick the boot in.

Likewise if I step abord a visiting ship in port I am technically subject to US laws and the US Constitution.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Jurisdiction doesn't always equal geography. It includes any circumstance where a person finds themselves in the care of the US Government.
For example P.O.Ws could be said to be in your jurisdiction even though it is illegal to ship them out of theatre and you may not be the soverign power of the territory they are detained in.

In the vernacular, once some bugger gets their collar felt, you can't stick the boot in.

Likewise if I step abord a visiting ship in port I am technically subject to US laws and the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

And as noted before this passage about "jurisdiction" in the 14th amendment has nothing to do with rights anyway, only the defiinition of citizenship.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights..."

There wasn't even an America when those words were written. Nor was there a constitution. Those words served as the primary justification for CREATING AMERICA. They are a foundational concept of this nation since its inception in July of 1776. They are a foundational concept that our founding fathers drafted and signed off on before declaring war on England to win our freedom. They are based upon the concept of natural rights, as clearly articulated in the philosophy of John Locke, and have served as the foundational justification for democratic nations around the world to free themselves from monarchy and tyranny.

A little light reading on natural rights:



Jefferson's phrase, justifying the separation of the colonies from England, was later borrowed by France:

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, by the member nations of the UN for international human rights treaties.

International human rights instruments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Furthermore, Jeffersons words were a foundational concept of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we and other nations signed off on in 1948.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The natural rights of human beings is such a fundamental concept in America that I really do not understand how ANY AMERICAN can attempt to justify the use of torture for any reason.

To be frank, denying the fundamental human rights of any other person on this planet is, or should be, ANATHEMA to an American. It is the most basic and repugnant betrayal of who we are, as a nation.
Click to expand...

The three rights Jefferson listed were "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". By killing foreign forces, the act of war itself deprives people (non-citizens) of their right to life. I know you're not a pacifist, so how do you justify that?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Do people outside of the U.S. have natural rights?
Click to expand...

If they do, then the moment they turn a gun on us, we are under no obligation to respect them. Evidence: we shoot back.
 
Alvin T. Grey said:
Jurisdiction doesn't always equal geography. It includes any circumstance where a person finds themselves in the care of the US Government.
For example P.O.Ws could be said to be in your jurisdiction even though it is illegal to ship them out of theatre and you may not be the soverign power of the territory they are detained in.

In the vernacular, once some bugger gets their collar felt, you can't stick the boot in.

Likewise if I step abord a visiting ship in port I am technically subject to US laws and the US Constitution.
Click to expand...





Why did we need a GITMO then?
 
Dav said:
The three rights Jefferson listed were "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". By killing foreign forces, the act of war itself deprives people (non-citizens) of their right to life. I know you're not a pacifist, so how do you justify that?
Click to expand...

The act of war, while regrettable, is sometimes the inevitable response to aggression by other nations. We can't stop people from being aggressive towards us (though I tend to believe that firepower can be a great deterrent, as witnessed by the cold war). However, once an enemy combatant has surrendered, that person is no longer engaging in actions against us, and retains their human rights. We may hold them, but according to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which we signed in 1948, we cannot torture them.
 
Dav said:
If they do, then the moment they turn a gun on us, we are under no obligation to respect them. Evidence: we shoot back.
Click to expand...

Shooting back is one thing. Torture is something we agreed, internationally, not to do. Eleanor Roosevelt, for that matter, is the one who helped to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was largely inspired by the atrocities of WWII.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
The act of war, while regrettable, is sometimes the inevitable response to aggression by other nations. We can't stop people from being aggressive towards us (though I tend to believe that firepower can be a great deterrent, as witnessed by the cold war). However, once an enemy combatant has surrendered, that person is no longer engaging in actions against us, and retains their human rights. We may hold them, but according to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which we signed in 1948, we cannot torture them.
Click to expand...

Catz Part Deux said:
Shooting back is one thing. Torture is something we agreed, internationally, not to do. Eleanor Roosevelt, for that matter, is the one who helped to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was largely inspired by the atrocities of WWII.
Click to expand...

For one thing, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is non-binding, and most of the U.N. follows less of it than we do.

That said, let's say that we have good reason to believe that a captured terrorist (not representing any nation and therefore not subject to international treaties regarding torture) knows about an impending terrorist plot on the same scale as 9/11, and he is not giving us information on it. If it takes surrender before captured enemies regain their rights, hasn't the terrorist refused to surrender knowledge which he knows puts us in harm's way? And even if not, are we really going to let thousands of citizens die just to make sure that some high ideal is "universal"?
 
Dav said:
For one thing, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is non-binding, and most of the U.N. follows less of it than we do.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. So, we don't believe that human beings have natural rights? Or they only have them when it's convenient for us?

Either we are true to who we are, whether it is easy or difficult, or we aren't.

That said, let's say that we have good reason to believe that a captured terrorist (not representing any nation and therefore not subject to international treaties regarding torture) knows about an impending terrorist plot on the same scale as 9/11, and he is not giving us information on it. If it takes surrender before captured enemies regain their rights, hasn't the terrorist refused to surrender knowledge which he knows puts us in harm's way? And even if not, are we really going to let thousands of citizens die just to make sure that some high ideal is "universal"?
Click to expand...

Given that this DID NOT OCCUR in the instances of individuals that we tortured, your hyperbole is duly noted.
 
Dav said:
For one thing, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is non-binding, and most of the U.N. follows less of it than we do.

That said, let's say that we have good reason to believe that a captured terrorist (not representing any nation and therefore not subject to international treaties regarding torture) knows about an impending terrorist plot on the same scale as 9/11, and he is not giving us information on it. If it takes surrender before captured enemies regain their rights, hasn't the terrorist refused to surrender knowledge which he knows puts us in harm's way? And even if not, are we really going to let thousands of citizens die just to make sure that some high ideal is "universal"?
Click to expand...

K, but how often does the 24 scenario play out? It's an incredibly unlikely probability. Mostly, you'll probably have someone who doesn't know, you may have someone who is innocent. So you're going to authorize this broad base torture regime because maybe sometime it's possible that it could possibly almost work out in the scenario you laid out. Improbable and unlikely scenarios I do not believe make good basis for broad sweeping policy.
 
The scenario that Dav has described was NEVER the case with the people that we tortured, and yet, we tortured them anyway. Yay us. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would be incredibly proud.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh, I see. So, we don't believe that human beings have natural rights? Or they only have them when it's convenient for us?

Either we are true to who we are, whether it is easy or difficult, or we aren't.
Click to expand...

I frankly find the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be a bit silly anyways. Provisions which say that forcing kids to go to school is somehow essential to human rights, and welfare benefits and free education are natural human rights, don't really sit well with me.

Anyways, evil has and always will be done in war. It's a question of minimizing the evil. Yes, it's bad if we torture one guy (who was trying to kill us), but what if (hypothetically) doing so would prevent a terrorist attack that would kill thousands of civilians? I frankly find the latter to be much more evil than the former.

Given that this DID NOT OCCUR in the instances of individuals that we tortured, your hyperbole is duly noted.
Click to expand...

It was a hypothetical. Do you have an answer?
 
Last edited:
What if in the midst of torturing men suspected of being a terrorist but was just in the wrong place at the wrong time or have no knowledge, a real terrorists blow up a building costing 1,000 of lives which could have been prevented had we been investigating other potential threats instead of wasting our time torturing people who had no information or were innocent?
 
Ikari said:
K, but how often does the 24 scenario play out? It's an incredibly unlikely probability. Mostly, you'll probably have someone who doesn't know, you may have someone who is innocent. So you're going to authorize this broad base torture regime because maybe sometime it's possible that it could possibly almost work out in the scenario you laid out. Improbable and unlikely scenarios I do not believe make good basis for broad sweeping policy.
Click to expand...

Catz Part Deux said:
The scenario that Dav has described was NEVER the case with the people that we tortured, and yet, we tortured them anyway. Yay us. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would be incredibly proud.
Click to expand...

Ikari said:
What if in the midst of torturing men suspected of being a terrorist but was just in the wrong place at the wrong time or have no knowledge, a real terrorists blow up a building costing 1,000 of lives which could have been prevented had we been investigating other potential threats instead of wasting our time torturing people who had no information or were innocent?
Click to expand...

These are all valid points, but they focus on practicality and not the ethics of it, which is what my point was based on. The point is, can we really say that torture is NEVER ethically/legally justified? Because that's the idea I am getting from Catz.
 
In the context that we know everything already, then perhaps it can be legally justified. Though the torture may not be needed at that point. It's never ethical.
 
I once posted a study that shows torture makes the brain delusional, basically you can't trust the information it produces. I'll try to find it again.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh, I see. So, we don't believe that human beings have natural rights? Or they only have them when it's convenient for us?
Click to expand...

No one has the right to purposely target innocent civilians or withhold information that could be used to save them.

Given that this DID NOT OCCUR in the instances of individuals that we tortured, your hyperbole is duly noted.
Click to expand...

Why does that matter? Before 9/11 no one had flown two jetliners into the World Trade Centers. Just because something hasn't occurred doesn't mean we should assume it won't happen.

I'm genuinely curious as to what you would do in such a situation. Suppose we captured a terrorist cell leader and on his laptop were communique giving the go ahead for an attack some time in the near future, but he refused to talk. What would you do?
 
Ikari said:
It's never ethical.
Click to expand...
Proof please? And how do you define "torture"? I don't consider waterboarding torture since it does not cause permanent physical harm.
 
Toothpicvic said:
Proof please? And how do you define "torture"? I don't consider waterboarding torture since it does not cause permanent physical harm.
Click to expand...

The U.S. has tried war criminals for torture after they waterboarded U.S. prisoners of war.

Your definition of torture is not the one anybody else uses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom