No one is denying so called muslim countries use torture, i even mentioned egypt, uzbekistan and libya in my post!
The arguments is here we have a so called freedom democratic nation calling for standardised Torture!
there is no murkiness about it, i don't know how you can say it is not black and white torture is torture does'nt matter if it is committed in Uzbekistan or America!
The pro americans are trying to make it sound all nice and hunky dory, just call it what it is and stop hiding behind semantics its Torture simple as that!
Faisal: Excellent post. You can sit right next to me at my next Las Vegas Guppy Meet. You can take over OhioGuy's spot. :) He's been spending all my tax dollars in thread after thread and I'm getting a little sore.
Torture is a reality even if you've got international conventions saying you can't do it. There is no recognized form of international enforcement of any prohibitions against torture. A law without a method of enforcement is not a law at all. Frankly, I think a law that is not enforced creates a disrespect for all laws. You get to pick and choose and argue which law is worthy of enforcement and which is not.
It is probably far better to say abolition of torture is an ideal to which the world will strive to attain. Then, seek to define torture in a universally accepted way and to provide mechanisms for obtaining information when we are faced with the most horrific of possible scenarios.
Remember the threads screaming "torture" because some terrorists had hoods placed over their heads while in transit to Gitmo? I think that kind of definition of torture is counterproductive and unhelpful to resolve the ethical and moral principles we need to seriously discuss. Can you imagine some terrorist fessing up to the location of the hidden nuke because a hood was placed over his head for a few hours? Does anyone in GS really believe that putting a hood over some guy's head is the moral equaivalent to beating someone to a bloody pulp with pipes and clubs to get him to talk? By saying that they are the same, you give the guys who use the clubs and pipes the argument that what they are doing is OK because someone else puts a hood over a captive's head. After all, torture is torture.
In today's modern age of science and technology, it's hard for me to believe that it would ever be necessary to slowly break every bone in some guy's body until he comes clean with whatever information you are trying to get out of him. There certainly must be drugs that can accomplish wonderful things in breaking down resistance when used in conjunction with psychological methods.
I think people need to ask themselves whether a system that better defines torture, differentiates between methods, accounts for worst case scenarios and establishes a framework for obtaining approval to use extreme tactics/methods is better or worse than what we currently have.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ak47: *
The arguments is here we have a so called freedom democratic nation calling for standardised Torture!
there is no murkiness about it, i don't know how you can say it is not black and white torture is torture does'nt matter if it is committed in Uzbekistan or America!
[/QUOTE]
Actually I don't want to put the so-called "freedom" and "democratic" labels into a high padestal. These are all relative terms. In isolation they don't mean much. There are worse things which happen in US/Europe, and no one in their right mind will pretend to say that any of these systems are even close to perfection. So lets get off that highway.
Leaving aside propaganda, what we are talking about is basically a three-step question. Your answers are probably as follows (correct me if I am wrong).
Q1. Does torture happen?
A1. Yes.
Q2. Is it ok?
A2. No
Q3. What should be done?
A3. Get rid of it completely.
In reality, your A1 is accepted (unfortunately) by all. Its get murkier in A2 and A3.
Suppose you are incharge of Hajj in Saudi Arabia. Millions of muslims are there to perform hajj. Your security agency catches a jewish terrorist, with bombs in his hand bag, who claims he has already planted dozens of bombs around Arafat and Mena. What do you do? Do you keep asking him politely but firmly where all the bombs are, knowing fully well, you are running out of time. Do you risk the lives of millions of muslims, because you think torturing the terrorist is an abhorrent act?
Lets see if you still absolutely certain that you will remain firm in your answers A2 and A3, given above.
Keeping in mind that the world we live in is not an ideal or safe anymore. I think torturing terrorists to get the information out of their system, and to protect a large number of people should be okay. As Faisal has pointed out it's already being widely used all over the world, and yes, even by the U.S., that's one of the reason why the Afghan prisioners were taken to Cuba, instead of bringing them back to the U.S. However, I feel that the whole process needs a lot of scrutiny...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Actually I don't want to put the so-called "freedom" and "democratic" labels into a high padestal. These are all relative terms. In isolation they don't mean much. There are worse things which happen in US/Europe, and no one in their right mind will pretend to say that any of these systems are even close to perfection. So lets get off that highway.
[/QUOTE]
Well actually the reason i mentioned so called freedom and democratic countries was to show them up for there hypocrisy when they say they respect all humankind when in fact they don't!
I can understand your thoughtprocess that all you wanted to do is bash the western countries. But, I think the real issue is about "torture", regardless of who does it.
So, therefore, I will like to hear your views about applying torture methods. Pls provide your own answer for the following scenario (as posted before), and this time, lets talk about your opinion on this scenario, and not some rhetorical criticism of western countries.
*Suppose you are incharge of Hajj in Saudi Arabia. Millions of muslims are there to perform hajj. Your security agency catches a jewish terrorist, with bombs in his hand bag, who claims he has already planted dozens of bombs around Arafat and Mena. What do you do? Do you keep asking him politely but firmly where all the bombs are, knowing fully well, you are running out of time. Do you risk the lives of millions of muslims, because you think torturing the terrorist is an abhorrent act?
*
I am sure you are not about to run away because you are asked a simple question in return. Or was the purpose of this thread just to hurl abuses and refrain from any meaningful exchange of views or expression of personal opinion?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
I am sure you are not about to run away because you are asked a simple question in return. Or was the purpose of this thread just to hurl abuses and refrain from any meaningful exchange of views or expression of personal opinion?
[/QUOTE]
Faisal
If your going to start mocking people and accuse them of running away then that shows you up as being a very childish and immature person.
If you actually read my posts you would realise i never run from any question.
If you don't like western countries being exposed for there hypocrisy that is your problem. they will continue to be accounted for there crimes and abuses of people regardless of where it happens.
as for your hypothetical example torture is not allowed in islam!
even in a real example today, if the iraqis held the occupying americans even though it is tempting they cannot torture them.
I am not mocking you. I asked the direct question two days ago, and reminded you today. I saw you were responding in other threads.
Anyway, coming back to your answer. It seems you are willing to sacrifice hundreds, if not thousands of innocent muslims, because you think you have no right to torture a terrorist. Interesting.
I think I have enough of this discussion now. It just showed everyone about you, which you accused me of. But I must admit one thing. If nothing else, you are consistent :k:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
So AK47 answer my question directly. If an unknown terrorist plans an atomic weapon in YOUR home town, and it will kill your mother and your father and all your family, would you endorse non-lethal torture of the suspect to find a bomb that is due to explode in 5 hours, killing millions? Answer the question directly.
[/QUOTE]
"If you actually read my posts you would realise i never run from any question."
You started this thread, so you have to take some responsibility for the topic. There are no personal attacks in this thread. Its clearly a discussion on the topic and the opinions expressed by the topic-starter.
In this case, the topic is "torture". You criticized the use of "torture" by western governments.
Fair enough.
A lot of people do not think of "torture" as a black-and-white issue. You claim you do. In order to get an insight of your own thoughtprocess as to how you perceive "torture", a hypothetical question was asked of you. Your response to the question clearly illustrated how much grasp you have of the issue you wanted to discuss. This is for everyone to see. It establishes your credibility and shows your knowledge on this topic. From this point, its probably not useful to carry on the discussion at any level, because we can all see your position.
If you want to claim you have greater knowledge than me then go ahead, I am not here to claim superior knowledge than anyone if thats your objective thats your choice.
But refrain from statements like “shows you for what you are” and “establishing my credibility”. these are just wasting html and they don’t add any value to the discussion.
as for torture just bringing up issue of torture shows the western nations as hypocrites they claim human rights all day long but deep down they are no different than a dictator when it comes to the crunch they torture people also!
America is so famous for Torture dictators send there best recruits to The School of Americas what is the school of Americas in english its is School of learning torture and death! World Famous American School of Torture
Let's make this easy.. AK, if someone credibly threatens violence against you what do you do? Do you let that person kill you? or do you prevent that person from killing you?
Once we establish your thoughts on this perhaps we can then expand the principle to broader subjects.
You want me to be straight with you? Are you sure, cz then you will perceive it as a personal attack, whereas there is none intended. Anyway here it goes.
Torture is bad. But it can be argued that in many cases it is necessary. Western countries do not have sole ownership over torture. If you want to bash western countries, there are ample areas where you will find it (I can help you with that if you don't find them). But if you pick on torture, then you are on slippery slope, because this is a relative world. And if you compare the records of modern day governments, the governments of the Islamic lands (which you call "kuffar governments") are miles ahead of the western governments.
By your weak and rhetorical answers you have shown, you don't comprehend the issue at all. You said that even if millions of lives are at stake, you will not use torture. This shows that you need to study on this topic a lot more than mere cut-paste from lopsided sources on the internet.
There are plenty of books available which detail the topic of interrogative techniques and comparasons of rules of interrogation by various societies. Read "The History of Torture" by Daniel Mannix or "The History of Torture and Execution" by Jean Kellaway. Also check out "Genealogies of Religion" by Talal Asad and "Political Islam" by Beinin and Stork.
The discussion on torture details dealings with people who have information which can result in saving the lives of other human beings. If, on the other hand, you are focussing solely on prisoners of war, who are caught fighting and have no additional worthwhile information, the muslims should not torture them or subject them to humiliation, however they should be detained so they can't escape and go abck to fighting and killing more muslims. The wisdom behind permitting the taking of prisoners is so as to weaken the enemy and ward off his evil by keeping him away from the battlefield so that he cannot be effective or play any role; it also creates a means of freeing Muslim prisoners by trading the prisoners whom we are holding.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by spoon: *
Let's make this easy.. AK, if someone credibly threatens violence against *you what do you do? Do you let that person kill you? or do you prevent that person from killing you?
Once we establish your thoughts on this perhaps we can then expand the principle to broader subjects.
[/QUOTE]
