Two down, One to go

what im saying is that if your rich (think millions to billions) you have a very good chance of escaping/bribing your way out of prison. However if your going to be tortured for a year or two, then your killed. Well thats only a year or two that they would have to do anything. :)

Btw ask the mothers and fathers of the millions who died in rawanda, congo, liberia, and other african countries, how its nice that the US has the moral high ground when the rulers/dictators of these countries will never see justice. Also in the slight case that anyone of them ever sees the inside of a jail cell, thats so many times better than the average life of some on in africa. Theyll get food, shelter, medicine. Whereas the people who already have suffered will starve to death.

later,
 
epicstruggle said:
Btw ask the mothers and fathers of the millions who died in rawanda, congo, liberia, and other african countries, how its nice that the US has the moral high ground when the rulers/dictators of these countries will never see justice.

But that is not because of lack of torture. That is because of lack of intervention.

Revenge is not cause enough for democratic societies to indulge in torture.

Also in the slight case that anyone of them ever sees the inside of a jail cell, thats so many times better than the average life of some on in africa. Theyll get food, shelter, medicine. Whereas the people who already have suffered will starve to death.

I can't help thinking that the solution to that would be to improve the conditions in Africa, not make them worse in jail.
 
i guess will just have to agree to disagree. You think people who torture, kill, rape thousands if not millions should sit in nice little cells for the rest of their lives. I think they should feel some of the pain they inflicted upon the people they ruled over and then be put to death.

later,
 
For all those in favor of torture...

Ask, and ye shall recieve:

Amnesty: Iraqis Complain of Torture by U.S. Forces
Wed Jul 23, 5:08 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis detained by U.S. troops have complained of torture and degrading treatment, Amnesty International said Wednesday.

There were also reports of troops shooting detainees, the London-based human rights watchdog said in a report based on interviews with former prisoners of the Americans across Iraq (news - web sites).


Amnesty staff heard complaints that included prolonged sleep deprivation and detainees being forced to stay in painful positions or wear hoods over their heads for long periods.


"Such treatment would amount to 'torture and inhumane treatment' prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention and by international human rights law," Amnesty said.


U.S. military officials were not immediately available to comment on the report.


Amnesty staff gathered testimony from former detainees around Iraq and from relatives of some still being held.


The organization made several requests to visit detention centers but were denied access by U.S. forces that have struggled to impose law and order since the invasion which toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in April.


"Detainees continue to report suffering extreme heat while housed in tents; insufficient water; inadequate washing facilities; open trenches for toilets; no change of clothes, even after two months' detention," Amnesty said.


Amnesty has said thousands are held in prisons run by U.S. troops. They include Abu Ghraib, one the most feared jails under Saddam, and Camp Cropper near Baghdad's airport.


The human rights group said it had received several reports of cases of detainees who have died in custody, "mostly as a result of shooting by members of the coalition forces."


Amnesty said 22-year-old Alaa Jassem was killed when soldiers fired on detainees during a riot on June 13 at Abu Ghraib. Demonstrators threw bricks and poles at the soldiers.


"According to eyewitnesses, Alaa Jassem was in a tent when he was shot. Seven other detainees were wounded," Amnesty said.


Other allegations reported by Amnesty included the case of Saadi al-Ubaydi on the morning of May 14, when two U.S. armed vehicles crashed through the stone wall surrounding his home.


"Several soldiers forced their way in and beat him with their rifle butts. He ran out of the house to get away from them. Soldiers shot him a few meters away and he died immediately," the report said, citing witnesses in Ramadi.


Many Iraqis complain troops use heavy-handed tactics that humiliate householders when conducting weapons searches.


"There continue to be many reports of members of the coalition forces engaging in house searches and damaging or destroying property without justification," Amnesty said.


"There are also numerous reports of confiscation of property, including large sums of money, upon arrest."
 
epicstruggle said:
i guess will just have to agree to disagree. You think people who torture, kill, rape thousands if not millions should sit in nice little cells for the rest of their lives.

How diplomatic :)

I mean, I could formulate it as
"I guess we'll just have to disagree. You think that
a) US and/or international law should act just as badly as sadistic dictators
b) Since prison staff is so corrupt, rich convicts should be tortured"

But I won't ;)

Seriously though, this has disturbed me. Is this common reasoning? Therefore I'll try to start a poll (never done that before, we'll see if I can figure out how to do it!) and see how it turns out.
 
did i miss state what you think should happen to criminals such as saddam, and his 2 sons (if they had been captured)? If i read your posts you want them to go to jail. The average jail cell these 2 would have gone to is still better than the living condition of the average iraqi.

So please tell me where i miss stated you. If I have I apologize sincerly, but i dont think i misunderstood you.

later,
ps i dont think youll see a very high vote for torture. :)
 
epicstruggle said:
So please tell me where i miss stated you. If I have I apologize sincerly, but i dont think i misunderstood you.

Technically you didn't miss state me, my objection (though clumsily made) was regarding your choice of words, namely "nice little" cell. I think you'll agree that these two sentences technically mean almost exactly the same thing but have very different emotive content:
"To sit in a nice little cell for the rest of their lives"
vs
"To be imprisoned for life".
If one looks at my a) counterexample (I'll ignore b since I still think that's another discussion.) where I said "US and/or international law should act just as badly as sadistic dictators", a less emotive, perhaps more fair version would have been "US and/or international law should employ torture".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make a big argument about these semantics, I just (perhaps clumsily) wanted to remark that I didn't think your wording was entirely fair.

ps i dont think youll see a very high vote for torture. :)

I certainly hope so! But I've tried to give the question as neutral a formulation as possible. Because, well, I'm really curious about the attitudes with respect to torture (in this case) here.
 
@horvendile: I stated it that way for a very good reason. Most iraqis placed in jail, would expect:
-torture
-lack of food
-lack of communication with family
-cramped cells
-overcrowded cells
-lack of showers/bathroom
-no lawyer access
-not knowing when they would be out (mind torture)

on the other hand Saddam would more than likely have:
-time to see family, friends, lawyers
-food on a regular basis
-gym
-tv
-desert
-private cell
-nice clean ceall
-shower
-bed
-access to lawyers
-reading materials
-plus whatever other perks we could throw at him :rolleyes:

"To be imprisoned for life" would be more accurate for the average iraqi

"To sit in a nice little cell for the rest of their lives" would be more accurate for saddam.

later,
 
Back
Top