http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4509530.stm
It's good to see that sense and decency can still prevail despite poor government decisions.
It's good to see that sense and decency can still prevail despite poor government decisions.
What the hell is torture?fluff said:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4509530.stm
It's good to see that sense and decency can still prevail despite poor government decisions.
Reading a thread where N8 is attempting to refute arguments with idiocy.DRB said:What the hell is torture?
Then not only does RM oppress my first amendment rights to booty pictures, it has a policy of torture.fluff said:Reading a thread where N8 is attempting to refute arguments with idiocy.
fluff said:Lords reject torture evidence use
So which one is the one that you don't allow?Changleen said:Well it does seem we have several definitions of it these days.
DRB said:So which one is the one that you don't allow?
That's not an answer but maybe my question isn't pointed enough. When does it go from interogation to torture?DaveW said:Down here.... pretty much the opposite of Bushville/Rummyland, No version of torture is allowed.
His country is ruled by the lollipop guild...fluff said:Yes N8, that's right.
As soon as you start hurting the person. Mentally or physically.DRB said:That's not an answer but maybe my question isn't pointed enough. When does it go from interogation to torture?
No, it's not that simple. I could claim I was being 'mentally hurt' simply by being questioned. There has to be a more defined standard, although I agree with your 'do no harm' premis..:Jeenyus:. said:As soon as you start hurting the person. Mentally or physically.
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
and your continuous condescending remarks are so maturefluff said:Someone please find N8 something to do. He's like a bored four-year old.
And there is my biggest problem. Even the Geneva Convention is horribly vague. The US is being villified and accused of something there isn't even a reasonable definition.Changleen said:No, it's not that simple. I could claim I was being 'mentally hurt' simply by being questioned. There has to be a more defined standard, although I agree with your 'do no harm' premis.
Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right.DRB said:And there is my biggest problem. Even the Geneva Convention is horribly vague. The US is being villified and accused of something there isn't even a reasonable definition.
Incredibly insightful answer.ohio said:Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's right.
I think it was. And I'll explain why in a bit.DRB said:Incredibly insightful answer.
Oh, I do apologise. In future I shall try and follow your (and N8's) example of a constructive addition to the debate.ridetoofast said:and your continuous condescending remarks are so mature
Definition is never going to be exact enough or detailed enough to allow a decent crack at interrogation without leaving itself open to interpretation in either direction.DRB said:There the US says no torture by civillian or military personnel.
Everyone is doing a very good job of high and mighty but it still doesn't answer the question of when interrogation becomes torture? Or are you unwilling to try and make a distinction for some reason? Because if moral folks like y'all can't make the line then how is a morally corrupt government ever going to do it.
It has already been defined. While there's always room for improvement, I don't see anything major wrong with the existing definitions (though, of course, I'm hardly an expert). They served us well for 50 years, until two things happened:DRB said:There the US says no torture by civillian or military personnel.
Everyone is doing a very good job of high and mighty but it still doesn't answer the question of when interrogation becomes torture? Or are you unwilling to try and make a distinction for some reason? Because if moral folks like y'all can't make the line then how is a morally corrupt government ever going to do it.