• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Torture in Iraq

T

The Bellman

Guest
Firstly, I'm not American - I'm Australian (America's single strongest supporter in relation to the Iraq campaign). Nor do I hate or bash America - I am married to an American citizen, and am very close to her family. I love America.

However, since the invasion of Iraq, America seems to have gone off the rails. Regardless of the reasons given before the invasion was launched, in retrospect there appears to have been no valid reason to do it. No evidence that Saddam was ever implicated in 9/11 has ever been forthcoming, and neither have any WMDs. Certainly, to the rest of the world, it appears as though the real reason was neither of these.

Obviously, all are glad that Saddam has been deposed. But that alone was not the reason for the invasion...or the US would be kept very busy deposing all the tyrants all around the world. The fact remains that the US had no valid reason to invade, and did so against the wishes of the UN and the majority of other world powers.

However, that's water under the bridge. They did invade, and deposed Saddam. But since then it's been downhill. Increasingly Iraqis are having the "At least Saddam was one of us" attitude. Unrest and feeling against the occupying troops rises every day - and despite US assurances, there is no evidence that a withdrawal is planned any time soon.

And now, to top it all off, the prisoner abuse evidence comes to light. Yes, it's quite possible/probable that Iraqis treated US prisoners poorly. Certainly, Iraqi troops treated their own people badly under Saddam. "They did it first," however, is no excuse.

What has been revealed is a violation of international law, an international law to which the US is a signatory. To maintain any credibility at all, to the rest of the world and Iraq, the US needs to punish the perpetrators appropriately. From what I have read, the individual soldiers have claimed that they were only "following orders" - but this defense was dismissed at Nuremburg. If the US is really as horrified as they claim to be (and I don't doubt the man on the street is as horrified as I - I'm talking of the powers that be), the perpetrators must immediately be court-martialled and cashiered. Whether or not trials for war crimes are appropriate, I do not know, not knowing enough of international law. If they are, the US must do NOTHING to shield these soldiers from such a process.

ONLY in the above way can the US redeem any credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan David

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2002
1,861
45
55
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟2,226.00
Faith
Atheist
Darkie said:
This happened early in the year... dont got the time to look for a link...
Google "Jessica Lynch" That should give some stuff about it.
Neither Jessica Lynch nor anyone taken captive with her was tortured. As for those soldiers being shot, it is customary in war to shoot enemy soldiers.

LilChrist said:
Something about the pictures you see...they don't tell you the whole story. Those Iraqi prisoners were the worst ones there. Also, the abuse was only phsycological, not physical, mostly, minus the supposed sexual harrasment.
Were they "worst ones" there? How do you know? What did they do? As I understand it they shot at American troops, which was their job as members of the Iraqi resistance, to shoot at American soldiers, just as our soldiers job is to shoot at Iraqi militants.

No matter what kind of abuse it was, it is prohibited by the Geneva conventions. How would you like it if American POWs were abused?

LilChrist said:
About the economy being bad since Bush took office, that was because of what Clinton did, and now Bush is gradually healing a messed up economy.
Now you're just being silly.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan David

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2002
1,861
45
55
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟2,226.00
Faith
Atheist
jingwei said:
Torture is normal in wars. Get over it.
It was, which is why in the 20th Century most of the nations of the world wrote and agreed to the Geneva Conventions in an attempt to govern what happens in war. This wasn't motivated just from altruism, but from national self-interest. We agreed not to abuse POWs in the expectation that our POWs would not be abused. The armed forces of Iraq did not always respect every aspect of the Geneva conventions but they did not abuse or torture American POWs.

Afghanistan was different because the Taliban government never ratified the Geneva Conventions, so we were not obligated to follow them with respect to Afghani soldiers and combatants.

Of course, knowing torture and other nastiness is normal in wars is a good reason to only fight wars when necessary. Wars are, after all, about killing lots of people and destroying infrastructure. I suppose one could make an argument that we had a good reason to start a war with Iraq, but I have yet to hear one.
 
Upvote 0

Blissman

God is Truth- A. Einstein
Nov 29, 2003
354
11
113
IA, USA
Visit site
✟551.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
There is one place for the use of torture both in and out of a war. It is an agreeded upon principle of most govenments. It is termed "The ticking bomb" test. The ticking bomb test refers to a principle by which any law can be broken - including torture. It's name comes from the 'test'. If you had a person in custody whom had planted a bomb in a public building, and that person refused to tell you the location of the building so that you could evacuate the bld., it would be permissible to use torture to obtain that information. The ticking bomb test is based on biblical law (in the OT). You may break any law as long as it's sole purpose is to save a human life.

The images of soldiers laughing at Iraqi's being tortured does not appear to me to pass the 'ticking bomb test'.
 
Upvote 0

Blissman

God is Truth- A. Einstein
Nov 29, 2003
354
11
113
IA, USA
Visit site
✟551.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I have a moral question. Please understand that this is theortical. Suppose it were discovered that President Bush had ordered the torture of the Iraqi's. (Please understand I am not claiming that he had). My question is: If it were so, should the President be put on trial as a war criminal, or is there some reason that isolates him from this moral judgement? It could, for example, be argued that going to war itself is immoral, but someone has to do it. Would Bush not be judged the same as anyone below him (such as the soldiers, whom under military law, are not required to obey an unlawful order). How high up the ladder does a judgement of a war crime be held in such judgement? If people are or are not to be tried as war criminals, others will judge them. You don't have to be an Iraqi or anyone in the middle east to hold someone in contempt.

Another question: In war, is it possible for a jury to be impartial ?
 
Upvote 0

Darkie

Active Member
May 6, 2004
46
2
38
✟30,176.00
Faith
Christian
Nathan David said:
Neither Jessica Lynch nor anyone taken captive with her was tortured. As for those soldiers being shot, it is customary in war to shoot enemy soldiers.

Were they "worst ones" there? How do you know? What did they do? As I understand it they shot at American troops, which was their job as members of the Iraqi resistance, to shoot at American soldiers, just as our soldiers job is to shoot at Iraqi militants.

No matter what kind of abuse it was, it is prohibited by the Geneva conventions. How would you like it if American POWs were abused?
hm... so they say we totured them and bam its real... when British pics came out they were claimed to be fake right off the back by all... American pics came out and it's all real right away... Also... Shooting soldiers dead and then showing off their bodies is customary?!?!? Shooting at each other yes... Executing them as POWs is 100% against the Geneva Convention...

I think he meant the photos showed were the worst photos... not the prisoners being the worst Iraqis...

If it is against the Geneva Convention it is bad... What about against UN Regulations... is that good? Saddam broke many UN rules and requests... yet that is fine apperently...

I have a moral question. Please understand that this is theortical. Suppose it were discovered that President Bush had ordered the torture of the Iraqi's. (Please understand I am not claiming that he had). My question is: If it were so, should the President be put on trial as a war criminal, or is there some reason that isolates him from this moral judgement? It could, for example, be argued that going to war itself is immoral, but someone has to do it. Would Bush not be judged the same as anyone below him (such as the soldiers, whom under military law, are not required to obey an unlawful order). How high up the ladder does a judgement of a war crime be held in such judgement? If people are or are not to be tried as war criminals, others will judge them. You don't have to be an Iraqi or anyone in the middle east to hold someone in contempt.

Another question: In war, is it possible for a jury to be impartial ?
I believe he would be tried then... not by a jury, but by a war tribunal or in a military court since he does hold the "Commander and Chief" title

There is one place for the use of torture both in and out of a war. It is an agreeded upon principle of most govenments. It is termed "The ticking bomb" test. The ticking bomb test refers to a principle by which any law can be broken - including torture. It's name comes from the 'test'. If you had a person in custody whom had planted a bomb in a public building, and that person refused to tell you the location of the building so that you could evacuate the bld., it would be permissible to use torture to obtain that information. The ticking bomb test is based on biblical law (in the OT). You may break any law as long as it's sole purpose is to save a human life.

The images of soldiers laughing at Iraqi's being tortured does not appear to me to pass the 'ticking bomb test'.
And what if the Iraqi's held information that could kill a human... Being laughed at and humilation are mental toture... not physical... All we know of the story are the pictures... With the government not being able to release all records most of the times... there could be more behind it we cant hear yet...

We agreed not to abuse POWs in the expectation that our POWs would not be abused. The armed forces of Iraq did not always respect every aspect of the Geneva conventions but they did not abuse or torture American POWs.

Of course, knowing torture and other nastiness is normal in wars is a good reason to only fight wars when necessary. Wars are, after all, about killing lots of people and destroying infrastructure. I suppose one could make an argument that we had a good reason to start a war with Iraq, but I have yet to hear one.
What about outside militant groups in and supported by Iraq and Iraqis... they kill Citizens of outside countries and POWs... that of course must respect the Geneva Convention :eek: ... they didnt abuse them... just execute them... but hey... they arent in the Iraqi Armed Forces... which aren't even in power officially anymore... now they are just rebels...

Obviously, all are glad that Saddam has been deposed. But that alone was not the reason for the invasion...or the US would be kept very busy deposing all the tyrants all around the world. The fact remains that the US had no valid reason to invade, and did so against the wishes of the UN and the majority of other world powers.
All the tyrants in the world do not go around breaking UN regulation rules and completely ignore their requests... If what the US did was 100% wrong... the UN should have stepped up and taken action... like they should have in Iraq right away... America did so against the wishes of the UN... so... Saddam ignored the UN many times... yet it just seems the plain jealousy of other countries to America means more to other countries than rules and regulations...
 
Upvote 0

Darkie

Active Member
May 6, 2004
46
2
38
✟30,176.00
Faith
Christian
I am american and dont feel superior to other nations. I believe my country does have more rights than most countries and that is what I believe there is jealousy for...
IMO, it is other nations that act superior. They point out everything the US does and look for the bad things. They try to humilate americans and make fun of them.
It seems unfair how one nation's actions will be exploited while the same or even more extreme actions of other nations will be ignored.

If history repeats stays the same, the UN would be extremely weak without the US being a member. Is it the puppet of the US? IMO, no. But they do seem weak as they cannot seek action and try to intervene in situations.
 
Upvote 0

Fiendishjester

Devil's advocate
Jun 28, 2003
374
2
in a field of pure consciousness
✟534.00
Faith
Hindu
Politics
US-Democrat
It is definitely true that quite a few Americans consider their nation and themselves superior to other countries. I see this every day. There are also many people who hold the idea that people in struggling nations like Iraq are barbarians for doing what they do. Stereotypes are abound. Even in official places, it goes on. That's why I was happy when Brazil started to fingerprint, photograph, and pull over every American that enters their airports (and Americans were angered by this?) It just shows the ridiculousness of the situation.

I agree with Jingwei. Having 60% of the world's resources (accumulated almost solely at the expense of other nations) and a very small percentage of the world's population does not make us any "better" than other countries. America wouldn't be the world power it is today without all of the several horrific acts it has commited in its name. Slavery and the genocide of Native Americans are only a few, and they are already enough to condemn it.
 
Upvote 0