why are libs against torture of terrorists?

Question

making naked men pile upon one another for example..hey you think the libs would be for that... sounds like a lib-democrats saturday night to me...

yes we should be kind to those that bomb innocents and lop heads off captives...

Answer 1

Liberals seem to love any enemy of the US.
Many were Pinkos when we were threatened by the Soviet Union.
Instead of working, liberals just set around and hate.

Answer 2

For starters, there's a BIG difference between a "terrorist" and a "suspected terrorist". An estimated 70-80% of the prisoners in Abu Ghraib were innocent of all charges; some of our military sweeps just rounded up all military-aged males and carted them off to prison. The bureaucracy was so fouled up that it could take months for someone's innocence to be determined.

Even in Guantanamo Bay, a lot of prisoners have been found to be innocent people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. In Afghanistan, we were handing out bounties to anyone who turned in a "terrorist", so many of the locals turned in any Arab they could find just to collect the reward - regardless of whether the person had any ties to terrorism or not.

Even with regards to bona fide terrorists, torture has another problem: it doesn't work. Intelligence professionals widely recognize that the intel they get from torture is virtually worthless. The person being tortured simply tells the torturers whatever they want to hear.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly... civilized governments don't torture people. If we want to claim that we're "better than they are", it's up to us to prove it through our behavior. If we aren't better than they are, then what is it we're really fighting for?

For what it's worth, I'm no "lib-democrat". I used to always favor the republicans over the democrats, but Bush and the religious right have destroyed the republican party that I once had such great hopes for. I still can't stand the democrats, but right now, there isn't a democrat alive that I wouldn't prefer over Bush.

Answer 3

All right thinking and good hearted people are against torture on principle, without regard to who the victim may be. On a purely pragmatic level, Americans should oppose torture BY Americans on the grounds that such actions increase the likelihood that captured Americans will, in turn, receive similar treatment. One of our greatest advantages in WW2 [Europe] was that many Axis military personnel WANTED to become prisoners of the Americans, surrendering readily with little or no resistance. Contrast this with sending out troops against fighters who would rather die than be captured.

But why am I bothering to 'talk sense' to someone who could ask such a silly question?

Answer 4

properly if Scalia stated it, then there's a stable danger it rather is incorrect. the guy has been a catastrophe as a Justice. yet that wasn't your question. confident, terrorists dedicate terrible acts for which they ought to be punished. No, that doesn't provide us the astonishing to torture them, fairly no longer people who're purely "suspected" terrorists. and that i've got serious doubts approximately Mohammed having given any efficient information, as each professional is of an identical opinion that torture does not bring about the acquisition of efficient information. yet interior the top, it comes all the way down to this easy actuality: we are the stable adult men. we ought to act like it.

Answer 5

I'm not a lib, but I feel torture is immoral which ever way you look at it. Put it this way, would you like to be tortured. If not, then you should not torture anyone else. If yes, then you must be a very very crazy person.
Please remember forgiveness friend

Answer 6

As a "lib" I am against torture because it undermines the very principles upon which our great nation was founded. Um'kay?

Answer 7

I am a Democrat, but I am not a liberal in the sense that you mean. Hey, Abhu Grabe prison was just handed over the Iraqis and what did they do?.......they immediately hung 11 men suspected of terrorism. Nice!!!!!

Answer 8

I would do more than torture to those who personally killed my loved ones & countrymen if I had a chance..Inhumane or not revenge is mine when it comes to my family & loved ones,& if I could be in the Military I would to defend my country & its people..Hey its how I feel so get over it...

Answer 9

Because those who would carry out the torture (USA) are actually in part guilty of causing the existence of terrorism in the first place by virtue of it's selfish, stupid, unjust and arrogant foreign policy.

Answer 10

Geneva Conventions

The four Geneva Conventions provide protection for people who fall into enemy hands. They envisage war in its traditional form, whereby people in uniforms fight clearly defined enemies in uniform, within a clearly defined arena. It therefore divides people into two explicit groups: combatants and non-combatants (civilians). There is a third group whose existence is implied in legal discourse, but whose existence and treatment are not covered in treaties. These are unlawful combatants, such as spies, mercenaries and other combatants who have broken the laws of war, for example by firing on an enemy while flying a white flag. Whilst combatants and non-combatants are provided substantial protection, a lesser level of protection is afforded to unlawful combatants.

The third(GCIII) and fourth(GCIV) Geneva Conventions are the two most relevant for the treatment of the victims of conflicts. Both treaties state in their similarly worded article 3 that in a non-international armed conflict that "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and that there must not be any "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture." or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".

GCIV covers most civilians in an international armed conflict, and states they are usually "Protected Persons" (see exemptions section immediately after this for those who are not). Under article 32, protected persons have the right to protection from "murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments...but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by non-combatant or military agents."

GCIII covers the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) in an international armed conflict. In particular article 17 states that "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.". POW status under GCIII has far fewer exemptions than "Protected Person" status under GCIV. If a person is an enemy combatant in an international armed conflict, then they will automatically have the protection of GCIII and be entitled to be regarded as POWs under GCIII unless they are an unlawful combatant.

As discussed, unlawful combatants have fewer protections under GC. If there is a question of whether a person is an unlawful combatant, they must be treated as POW's "until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal" (GCIII article 5). Note that the term competent tribunal is not defined and no requirement for neutrality is imposed. If the tribunal decides that they are an unlawful combatant, they are not considered a Protected Person under GCIV. However, even so they still have some protection under GCIV, and must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial [for war crimes], shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention" (GCIV Article 5).