QFAC: The Candidates Position on Torture

Originally posted by Johnmike
Um...hello? That's called rape. You are advocating rape as a form of torture. Perhaps you would benefit from the aid of a dictionary. I will help you.

rape 1 (rāp) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.

Iori the Rapist. Is that a good campaign slogan?

Well I've never considered anything short of forcing someone to provide
sex, be that vaginal, anal or oral sex as rape.

I do not consider giving the terrorist a hand-job to get them to break to
be rape.

However, considering the implications of such, although I may have my
own ideas on it, I would not support it, and would bring the country in
line with the geneva convention.

[edit on 4/18/2007 by iori_komei]

You've said enough, rapist. Thanks for your input.

Originally posted by Johnmike
You've said enough, rapist. Thanks for your input.

1. I am not a rapist.
2. I will decide when I have said enough, not you.
3. While I may have my own views on what constitutes rape, I will
follow the general consensus and established guidelines and laws.

You advocate forced sexual acts on prisoners as a form of torture. You are a rapist.

But hey, maybe, according to your political ideology, that's okay.

[edit on 18-4-2007 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Johnmike
You advocate forced sexual acts on prisoners as a form of torture. You are a rapist.

Regardless of what I think, it does not equate to me advocating it.

A rapist is someone who non-consetnually has sexual relations with
another, in no way do I fit that definition.

If I order my soldiers to massacre a town, am I not a murderer?

If I order my soldiers to rape prisoners of war, am I not a rapist?

Originally posted by iori_komei
I do not consider giving the terrorist a hand-job to get them to break to
be rape.

Go become a Police Officer.
Go finger a woman in questionning.
Go see what the court defines rape as.

Firstly: Defien terrorist? Is this person already convicted?
Secondly: It is rape. (The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. (American Heritage Dictionary).
Thirdly: You support rape.
Fourthly: If you stand around and promote someone to rape another person, you yourself would be convicted along side them in court.

Originally posted by Odium
Go become a Police Officer.
Go finger a woman in questioning.
Go see what the court defines rape as.

I did not say a woman.

Firstly: Define terrorist? Is this person already convicted?

Terrorist as in someone who has been convicted as such.

Secondly: It is rape. (The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. (American Heritage Dictionary).

I do not consider it as such, however that is not to say I do not consider
it wrong.

Thirdly: You support rape.
Fourthly: If you stand around and promote someone to rape another person, you yourself would be convicted along side them in court.

No, I do not personally have a problem with what i defined, but that
does not mean I am promoting it.



To be honest it is something that I am really not sure of myself, when I
first said it I supported the idea, however now that I really think about it,
I am not as supportive of the idea.

[edit on 4/18/2007 by iori_komei]

Then do the same and replace man.

If a Police Officer was to do it, he would be tried for rape. If he did it on a man, on a woman or anything in between.

I do not consider giving the terrorist a hand-job to get them to break to
be rape.

As you yourself said - you don't mind it being done. You think it is fine to force sexual acts on someone to get information from them.

although I may have my own ideas on it, I would not support it,

So what is meant by that?

first said it I supported the idea, however now that I really think about it,
I am not as supportive of the idea.

I am sure, it was a good idea when you thought the more hardline element of this site would support this idea. Any means to get information and all that Jazz. However once you were brought into question you suddenly change your song.

Originally posted by Odium
So what is meant by that?

What it meant/s is that I do not activel promote everything I believe.

I am sure, it was a good idea when you thought the more hardline element of this site would support this idea. Any means to get information and all that Jazz. However once you were brought into question you suddenly change your song.

Please, I could care less about who votes for me,
I refuse to play games like that

My ideas just happen to continually evolve.

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by Odium
Go become a Police Officer.
Go finger a woman in questioning.
Go see what the court defines rape as.

I did not say a woman.

Secondly: It is rape. (The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse. (American Heritage Dictionary).

I do not consider it as such, however that is not to say I do not consider
it wrong.

Thirdly: You support rape.
Fourthly: If you stand around and promote someone to rape another person, you yourself would be convicted along side them in court.

No, I do not personally have a problem with what i defined, but that
does not mean I am promoting it.

Not only are you a rapist, but you are a sexist!

Wow, Stalin! Your campaign is going well! I've even thought of a new slogan!

Iori Komei: Raping, Communist liar! Vote for me, like you voted for my man, Joey!

Originally posted by Johnmike
Not only are you a rapist, but you are a sexist!

This is the last time I'm going to say it, I am not a rapist.

Wow, Stalin! Your campaign is going well! I've even thought of a new slogan!

Iori Komei: Raping, Communist liar! Vote for me, like you voted for my man, Joey!

1. I do not like Stallin, as I consider it to be his fault that Communism
became viewed a s a bad thing, as he corrupted the basic ideals behind
it to suit his flawed wantings.

2. I am not a Communist, I am a liberal libertarian-socialist.

3. If you think your attacks/criticisms actually phase me in any way,
you are very wrong, what you say or think is of no importance to me.

[edit on 4/18/2007 by iori_komei]

It's obviously of no importance to you.

Good luck in the elections.

Now now guys, can we behave like gentlemen, and not sit here calling each other names like little children? Besides, this debate got taken for a loop on the rape thing. We need to readjust the thread back to what it was about, torture and what constitutes it.

Technically, rape IS a form of torture. Do I support it as such? No. Sex acts perpetrated against anyone as a way to leverage information out of them is not my idea of effective interrogation technique. That being said, I think that sometimes a little force may be required to secure the information that one knows is being reserved by a suspect. Besides, it doesn't really matter whether we like it or not, it still goes on. No, that's no justification for the acts, but it does go to show what our opponents will resort to as a means to get vital intelligence on us.

So now, the question I pose to all of you is this: What do we do about people that we KNOW are torturing our's when they catch them? Do we do the same to them, or do we step up and be the "bigger man" as it were, and take the moral high ground?

Each person will have to ultimately make that decision on their own merits.. What do you all think?

TheBorg

To answer your question borg, even if those who fall into enemy hands are being tortured, we should consider torture beneath us. Retaliating against prisoners in our custody will not in any way help any prisoners who might be held by the enemy, so what would be the point?
We've already decided that our military can function without intelligence gained through torture- if that weren't the case we never would have agreed to abide by treaties that prohibit it.

The relevance of torture on the battlefield is diminishing somewhat. We can track spot the enemy for ourselves now far more easily than we could beat an honest answer out of a prisoner.

We might rarely get our hands on someone who knows something that we cannot find out as easily on our own but even in those cases there is a question of cost/benefit that settles the argument even if one does not accept the obvious moral and legal reasons to abstain from such practices.

So we capture a high ranking Al Qaida figure and we hook him up to a car battery until he tells us where Bin Laden was last week.
So great, we know where we should have bombed last week, and we assign John Titor to the case, but naturally that proves to be a huge disappointment.
And to get this completely useless, unverifiable information, we have undermined the justice of our cause, costing ourselves much-needed support both at home and abroad. This puts us at risk of failing the very necessary criteria of public support, deprives us of some foreign intelligence assistance we may otherwise be able to get, and makes us look like exactly what the terrorists tell people we are, thus bolstering their recruitment. I'm not saying that America brought terrorism on itself, but I will say that maybe it would be a little bit more difficult for Al Qaida to find jihadists to recruit if we would stop acting exactly the way they would expect the "great satan" to act.

There is neither a moral nor a material justification for torture. You get far better mileage out of a careful mixture of bribery and shrewd use of technology and deception, and the consequences of being wrong don't suck half as much then either.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well I've never considered anything short of forcing someone to provide
sex, be that vaginal, anal or oral sex as rape.

Actually, it is.. as is forcing someone to accept sex. Males can be coerced into sex very much against their will, and it's often a shaming and difficult issue to deal with. Being coerced (with drugs or otherwise) into having sex with someone from a group you despise is dangerous... the man can lose control, enter a rage state and harm the woman or can be so humiliated and angry over it that he develops other problems.

And, of course, you get no useful information out of them.

Torture to POWs or to enemy combatants or to anyone who threatens the security of the United States should be allowed. Including any and all illegal immigrants who tresspass onto the premise of the United States without permission. They are to be tortured then shot once the proper information has been attained that will lead to the capture of more illegal aliens or enemy combatants who threaten the United States. Once the torture has been done they should be shot in the back of the head and the price of the bullet is to be mailed back to the enemy country or to the parents of said enemy combatant.

Originally posted by Odium1. The U.S. Congress approved Senator John McCain’s amendment last year to ban torture by all U.S. government agencies. This move recognized that a ban on torture is not only a moral necessity but also essential to ensure the same protections for U.S. soldiers. Recent legislative action, however, allows harsh interrogation techniques to be used by non-military interrogators. Will you support future legislation that bans all U.S.-sponsored torture, with no exceptions and directs all U.S. agents to abide by the Geneva Conventions?

Completely. 100%. In fact, I'll go as far as to support having non-military interrogators adhering to the same standards.

2. The federal War Crimes Act of 1996 defines a war crime as any “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions’ Common Article 3. This standard ensures that those who commit such abuses, including against our own troops, do not go unpunished. Do you believe the United States should maintain an unwavering commitment to Common Article 3?

How can we insist that our soldiers be humanely treated if we don't treat our own prisoners humanely? I support that, 100%.

3. The president acknowledged the existence of a CIA program that indefinitely detains “enemy combatants” in secret sites outside the rule of law and without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Individuals detained in such locations are afforded no safeguards of due process and may be subject to unchecked abuses. Will you call upon the United States to cease all secret detentions and provide the ICRC access to all U.S. prisoners, as required by our international treaty obligations?

I will. I think the secret program is a rather disgusting artifact of the Cold War.

4. Under the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” the United States transports individuals from one country to another without judicial oversight to face criminal charges in the receiving country. Diplomatic assurances from the receiving government are designed to protect the human rights of the detainee, but many officials have confirmed that the U.S. has no capacity to ensure humane treatment under these circumstances. Do you support a prohibition on transfers of individuals in U.S. custody to other countries where they are likely to be tortured regardless of assurances otherwise?

Yes. Again, if we do not support this kind of treatment for our troops, then we should not do it ourselves.

5. Recent legislation will permit—for the first time in the history of the United States— individuals to be convicted based on evidence obtained through abuse or torture (admitted through hearsay evidence). Will you oppose this practice, even for trials involving terrorism suspects?

Actually, it's not the first time in US history -- see the Salem Witch trials for another disgusting example.

No, I don't support it. People who have been tortured will say ANYthing to get the torture to stop. This has been proved countless times. It is not justice to convict someone based on evidence gained through torture.

6. By making War Crimes Act changes that are retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has immunized all top government officials and CIA agents against prosecution for interrogation policies that resulted in the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and in secret government torture cells around the globe. Should top government officials, private contractors, and CIA officials be given blanket immunity for their past conduct?

I don't think the changes should be retroactive. I would work to have that removed. I think they need to be held accountable.

7. More than two years after the Abu Ghraib photos were published — and nearly four years after the first abuse-related deaths in U.S. custody as part of the “war on terror” — we are still not in a position to say that we know how this situation came about so that we can ensure that such abuses never happen again. Do you support the establishment of an independent commission to investigate U.S. detention and interrogation policies and practices since Sept. 11, 2001, and to hold those who authorized and carried out abuses accountable?

Actually, I think we do know what the cause was -- failure within the military infrastructure. The leaders set the policies and are responsible for them. Yes, an investigation should be conducted -- but modifications to basic training need to be done.

And we need to quit using contractors.

8. Under recent legislation, the president will be permitted to authorize acts that are prohibited by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogations, without the possibility of court review of this authority. This strips the courts of their historical and constitutional role as a check on the executive branch. Do you oppose this broad expansion of executive powers, allowing the president to choose to follow or not follow international treaties, and that will side-step the authority of our courts system?

I'm against that. The office of the presidency isn't supposed to be a dictatorship.

i will abolish torture, torture does nothing but get the people to give us what we want to hear and most of the time it would just be made up or inacurate as its done under pressuer which in turn puts lives on the line.

i would ensure that prisners are treated fairly and insure that the only torture they get is losing their liberty.

torture is also a stain on the country