Trump Promotes Torture

invisible said:
How do you know they're not trying to make them feel hopeless to send a message? Torture doesn't have to be for any special purpose, like for example getting information. It can be a punishment for some supposed wrong, or it can be inflicted purely for fun. I don't think it's possible to say that there is just one single reasoning behind inflicting torture that conclusively qualifies the treatment as torture. It can be any reason, or no reason. In a court of law I don't think that there has always been a coherent reason given for say, why a parent tortured their kid - deciding on torture is more about the treatment, because a torturer can swear "my intentions were good" until they die. It's just cruel, harmful treatment, deliberately inflicting pain and suffering. In this case it's political and directly related to the policies of government.
Click to expand...

Yes of course, I do not know and that was implied in my post.
 
the said:
Yes of course, I do not know and that was implied in my post.
Click to expand...

It's just that not knowing is not a good criteria for making a judgment about torture, the way that you said you require. They could get away with a huge amount of torture with the excuse that "we acknowledge that the treatment was inappropriate but there was no intention to torture". No one should need to know what someone's intentions are to recognise that treating a human being worse than you would treat a dog is torture. If it were a dog locked up in these conditions we would say "Poor little thing! This is inhumane! They didn't even give it a proper blanket!" But when people get asked to choose between items of their own clothing for warmth, we shouldn't need to say "What was the intention behind this?" It's simply torture to inflict this treatment on a human being.
 
invisible said:
It's just that not knowing is not a good criteria for making a judgment about torture, the way that you said you require. They could get away with a huge amount of torture with the excuse that "we acknowledge that the treatment was inappropriate but there was no intention to torture". No one should need to know what someone's intentions are to recognise that treating a human being worse than you would treat a dog is torture. If it were a dog locked up in these conditions we would say "Poor little thing! This is inhumane! They didn't even give it a proper blanket!" But when people get asked to choose between items of their own clothing for warmth, we shouldn't need to say "What was the intention behind this?" It's simply torture to inflict this treatment on a human being.
Click to expand...

Well I don't agree there. All evils are easy to get away with in the government, but there is a difference between torture and not torture.

Not knowing is not a good criteria for making a judgement about anything really.
 
Last edited:
So people getting treated like cattle (a toturous experience) sucks. I wouldn’t describe it specifically as torture but I think that regardless of the exact word used, there’s no excuse for subjecting detainees to inhumane conditions.
 
I would think that forcing someone to suffer would be torture. How is forcing people--including children-- to choose one article of clothing to wear and then forcing them to sleep in a cold room on a cold floor not a form of torture? Forcing a mother to struggle to keep her baby warm... when all you have to do is heat the fucking room, offer a cot and a blanket... It's the 21st century. Electricity and blankets and cots exist and they aren't newfangled unheard of things.
It is fucking sadistic.
 
Last edited:
At a base level this argument seems to me an argument about humanity.
I believe that these means would not be justified if people seriously considered the humanity of the other and put themselves in their shoes. Human beings have a natural ability to empathise with others, but also- alarmingly this natural process can shut down.
No one has the right to play god. People make mistakes in their actions and judgements, so how can it ever be judged 'rightly' who is to be treated humanely- and who not. Better to have humanity - (a fundamental awareness of the humanity of the other as the starting point).
If we are cruel to people who are cruel and justify this than how can we be any better? But yes judge them in a proper court and have a fair legal process.
But who is going to play god and judge whome it is alright to intentionally harm?People justify unjustifiable acts and in doing so they cite the inhumanity (in some way, the indefensible behaviour of the other). A 'line' that has been crossed.
If an awareness of the humanity of the other is your starting point there can never be any justification. There is no moral ground - it is just pure base animality.
I don't know what the definition of torture is but let's say it is 'consciously' and 'deliberately' causing harm to another. This is the worst kind of harm you can cause. Especially so because to justify such an act as defensible and justified - moral even - is ultimately hypocritical and perverse.
 
Last edited:
the said:
Well I don't agree there. All evils are easy to get away with in the government, but there is a difference between torture and not torture.

Not knowing is not a good criteria for making a judgement about anything really.
Click to expand...

Obviously you are free to make your own mind up, but I don't understand how anyone can claim that confiscating clothing items from detainees in freezing imprisonment conditions is anything other than torture. "Inappropriate" is an inappropriate euphemism for such pointlessly cruel treatment. It's deliberate and clear inflicting pain and suffering. I can't really grasp why anyone would deny that. Withholding an understanding of this as torture on some fine technical distinction is just splitting hairs imho.
 
acd said:
I would think that forcing someone to suffer would be torture. How is forcing people--including children-- to choose one article of clothing to wear and then forcing them to sleep in a cold room on a cold floor not a form of torture? Forcing a mother to struggle to keep her baby warm... when all you have to do is heat the fucking room, offer a cot and a blanket... It's the 21st century. Electricity and blankets and cots exist and they aren't newfangled unheard of things.
It is fucking sadistic.
Click to expand...

Yes. Considering the budget of the US military, I think they can afford to supply a fucking cot for an infant.
 
acd said:
I would think that forcing someone to suffer would be torture. How is forcing people--including children-- to choose one article of clothing to wear and then forcing them to sleep in a cold room on a cold floor not a form of torture? Forcing a mother to struggle to keep her baby warm... when all you have to do is heat the fucking room, offer a cot and a blanket... It's the 21st century. Electricity and blankets and cots exist and they aren't newfangled unheard of things.
It is fucking sadistic.
Click to expand...
By your definition, some are forcing torture on me here.
 
He isn't talking about torture as punishment, he is talking about using it as an interrogation tactic.
 
Last edited:
Eventhorizon said:
By your definition, some are forcing torture on me here.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif
 
What if one water boarding interrogation of a prisonor of war can save the lives five marines?
 
Irish said:
What if one water boarding interrogation of a prisonor of war can save the lives five marines?
Click to expand...
When there is no line - where do you draw the line?
 
Littlelissa said:
When there is no line - where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...
When you come across a person who doesn't care if they live or die just as long as they kill you in the proccess. If interrogating people as these can save the lives of others who do infact value the lives of other people than why not?
 
That sounds like a lot of 'ifs' to me.like @invisible said people find all sort of excuses for justifying all sorts of behaviour however outrageous. I might decide some one with blue eyes deserves to be punished just because they are in the outside group. A school teacher did this by running an experiment with primary school children- and by creating two eye colour groups, pitting half the class against the other.

What if the person in government or at the top making decisions is a megalomaniac? What if they got the wrong guy - or were just promoting their own agenda.

I just don't want to ever live in a society where people are strung up and tortured, for any reason. It's medieval - look at the weapons of torture people used to use and how unbelievable they are. Surely we've come on since that?
 
Last edited:
I love the idea of torturing suspected terrorists but unfortunately it doesn't work as an interrogation technique (to extract information).

The Neuroscience of Interrogation.



We even know this about imprisonment.

The court, in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation. [Title 18: U.S Code]
 
Last edited:
Littlelissa said:
That sounds like a lot of 'ifs' to me.like @invisible said people find all sort of excuses for justifying all sorts of behaviour however outrageous. I might decide some one with blue eyes deserves to be punished just because they are in the outside group. A school teacher did this by running an experiment with primary school children- and by creating two eye colour groups, pitting half the class against the other.

What if the person in government or at the top making decisions is a megalomaniac? What if they got the wrong guy - or were just promoting their own agenda.

I just don't want to ever live in a society where people are strung up and tortured, for any reason. It's medieval - look at the weapons of torture people used to use and how unbelievable they are. Surely we've come on since that?
Click to expand...
The answer to your questions in the second paragraph is all of the above (they are all currently found in the U.S. court system, but really any world judicial system for the matter). Wrong man is the downfall of any judicial system and it is garenteed to happen, wackos are already in the government swaying the rulings of courts for their favor (we call these people politicians), and thus people "disappear" everyday, (also from hit lists of politicians (cough Killery Clinton everytime someone was going to take her to court and JFK as another example)). It's a cruel world and world peace is a myth.
But overall some people need to be killed anyway, more specifically those who have no care for others well being...like child rapists, serial killers, and terrorists who want to slit the throat of ever American born baby.
 
Irish said:
The answer to your questions in the second paragraph is all of the above (they are all currently found in the U.S. court system, but really any world judicial system for the matter). Wrong man is the downfall of any judicial system and it is garenteed to happen, wackos are already in the government swaying the rulings of courts for their favor (we call these people politicians), and thus people "disappear" everyday, (also from hit lists of politicians (cough Killery Clinton everytime someone was going to take her to court and JFK as another example)). It's a cruel world and world peace is a myth.
But overall some people need to be killed anyway, more specifically those who have no care for others well being...like child rapists, serial killers, and terrorists who want to slit the throat of ever American born baby.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone deserves to be tortured.
 
Irish said:
The answer to your questions in the second paragraph is all of the above (they are all currently found in the U.S. court system, but really any world judicial system for the matter). Wrong man is the downfall of any judicial system and it is garenteed to happen, wackos are already in the government swaying the rulings of courts for their favor (we call these people politicians), and thus people "disappear" everyday, (also from hit lists of politicians (cough Killery Clinton everytime someone was going to take her to court and JFK as another example)). It's a cruel world and world peace is a myth.
But overall some people need to be killed anyway, more specifically those who have no care for others well being...like child rapists, serial killers, and terrorists who want to slit the throat of ever American born baby.
Click to expand...

Wow, you express a truly pessimistic worldview. It's definitely your personal prerogative to interpret human endeavour as inherently hopeless. Of course anything is permissible if you think we're all doomed. In which case I have no idea why you still think an American life is more important than a foreign life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top