PDA

View Full Version : Italians may make 'small doses' of torture legal



Mac Seafraidh
Sunday, April 25th, 2004, 06:17 AM
Italians may make 'small doses' of torture legal

By Philip Willan in Rome



23 April 2004

Torture may be acceptable provided it is administered in small doses, says a bill under discussion in the Italian parliament that has outraged human rights organisations.

The Chamber of Deputies yesterday passed an amendment, tabled by the far-right Northern League, to the bill which opposition MPs denounced as a green light to "limited" torture but which government supporters said was essential for police.

The amendment says violence and threats must be used repeatedly to qualify as torture. The League said the previous wording had been influenced by police violence at the G8 summit in Genoa three years ago.

"We ... have to make it clear that we don't support those who want to criminalise the police, making their job practically impossible," said Carolina Lussana, the League MP who drafted the amendment.

Marco Bertotto, the chairman ofAmnesty International in Italy, said the law did not respect the terms of a United Nations convention on torture which was ratified by Italy in 1988.

independent.co.uk

Moody
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 07:36 PM
This could be widened to a discussion on torture itself.

Is it ever right to torture people?

Never?

Sometimes?

If sometimes, under what circumstances?

Strengthandhonour
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 10:25 PM
I think torture can be a very powerful tool. With a young child, you tell him not to touch some random object and if he does he will be punished, most of the time the child will do it and will get punished, he will be punished and learn the lesson(ok atleast most of the time). That's what would happen with torture I believe. See, I don't think prison is harsh enough, even through I never been to prison(and I hope I never end up in prison).
I think torture would work better. There would be less chances of the person doing it again I think if he is tortured.

Skando-naivian-Girl
Monday, June 7th, 2004, 11:46 PM
Torture at times is the only way to get the enemy to co-operate. And if that information is very useful and may even save lives of the people on your side. Than why not?

Conquistador
Wednesday, June 9th, 2004, 08:29 AM
I find it amazing that those who advocate torture or at least "encourage" it to a certain degree are usually the ones who could never endure it.






@Strengthandhonour

See, I don't think prison is harsh enough, even through I never been to prison(and I hope I never end up in prison).

I don't know how the prisons are where you live, but where I live, being isolated from your loved ones and being continuously sexually harassed and raped (Male rape) by the same sex in a prison cell does qualify as torture.

hardcorps
Wednesday, June 9th, 2004, 11:06 AM
This could be widened to a discussion on torture itself.

Is it ever right to torture people?

Never?

Sometimes?

If sometimes, under what circumstances?
As a moral relativist, my only question would be who's doing the torture and for what end. To preserve my kind I would shrink from nothing.

I don't know the situation in Italy very intimately but, due to the support torture gets from the Northern League, it would have my de facto blessing.

Moody
Wednesday, June 9th, 2004, 04:58 PM
There is the feeling that if we do not use torture, then regimes that do will have an unfair advantage.

So until torture is COMPLETELY eradicated world-wide [fat chance] then we will have to use torture ourselves otherwise our enemies will have one over on us.
That is an amoral position I suppose.

We could get others to do our torturing for us so we can say, 'WE do not torture'!
And we could then condemn other regimes for using torture!
Oh the hypocrisy - as if!

There is also the fact that humans are quite sadistic and enjoy the spectacle of torture.
Torture as an art spectacle.

Degrees of torture - mind games as limited torture.

http://www.icjaycees.org/images/hh2000/torture.jpg

Strengthandhonour
Wednesday, June 9th, 2004, 10:21 PM
I find it amazing that those who advocate torture or at least "encourage" it to a certain degree are usually the ones who could never endure it.





I don't know how the prisons are where you live, but where I live, being isolated from your loved ones and being continuously sexually harassed and raped (Male rape) by the same sex in a prison cell does qualify as torture.
Obviously that is a punishment. But, is that a punishment enough? I mean, the person is just going to be depressed or upset while being in jail, but once he gets out of jail and is back with his beloved ones, then what?

Conquistador
Wednesday, June 9th, 2004, 10:56 PM
Obviously that is a punishment. But, is that a punishment enough? I mean, the person is just going to be depressed or upset while being in jail, but once he gets out of jail and is back with his beloved ones, then what?

It depends on the person and the certain situation the person was in. If the person was alone without any harassment and just ONLY confinement, yes, he or she would be depressed and upset. However, it is sometimes never the case.

Strengthandhonour
Wednesday, June 9th, 2004, 11:03 PM
My point is, That we need to find another way to "Punish" the criminals, in a most succesful way. Just like with drug abuse, A boy does it and gets yelled at and says I'll never do it, a couple of months later he goes out and does it because he thinks things are fine now. But see, if he was punished, he would know and realize that if he does something wrong, he will be punished again and feel that pain.

Conquistador
Wednesday, June 9th, 2004, 11:29 PM
My point is, That we need to find another way to "Punish" the criminals, in a most succesful way. Just like with drug abuse, A boy does it and gets yelled at and says I'll never do it, a couple of months later he goes out and does it because he thinks things are fine now. But see, if he was punished, he would know and realize that if he does something wrong, he will be punished again and feel that pain.

That is only one scenario you've created in that adolescent mind of yours. Not real life. Of course, I know you will think otherwise when you are being tortured, if it ever occurs. Torturing people for killing others without remorse is one thing, torturing people who suffer from addictions is another and is never productive when the outcome is extreme psychological damage.

Strengthandhonour
Wednesday, June 9th, 2004, 11:39 PM
I don't fear torture because I know I am a good person and would never commit a crime. Did you ever think of the positive effects it could have on whites? All those filthy immigrants might start leaving when they realize if they do something wrong, They will be punished in foreign land. You might say that killing people who suffer an addiction is not productive, but is it productive that the person is going around spreading drugs to people?
"Extreme psychological damage" can be used as a powerful tool.

Conquistador
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 12:04 AM
I don't fear torture because I know I am a good person and would never commit a crime.

Anybody who says they are a "good" person is hardly good at all. Anyone who does not fear torture is either lying or two cards short of a deck (or in other words, CRAZY).

Did you ever think of the positive effects it could have on whites?

Yes, but I do want a list.

All those filthy immigrants might start leaving when they realize if they do something wrong, They will be punished in foreign land.

Define which ones, please?

You might say that killing people who suffer an addiction is not productive,

What do you mean I "might" say that, I DID say that.

but is it productive that the person is going around spreading drugs to people?

No, obviously it is not.

"Extreme psychological damage" can be used as a powerful tool.

Yes, it very well can.

Strengthandhonour
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 01:07 AM
Anybody who says they are a "good" person is hardly good at all. Anyone who does not fear torture is either lying or two cards short of a deck (or in other words, CRAZY).
Yes. I am an evil teenager who drives around running over older people. If I was in the position of torture, yes of course I would fear it! but what I meant was, Why should I have to be so worried about it? I know I don't do bad things. So are you a good person AKA crazy?



Yes, but I do want a list.
The list your demmand. See all those Negroids that go around stealing? perhaps if they are tortured a bit some might stop. See those filthy Morocans in Barcelona that cause trouble? maybe if they are tortured they will change a bit.




Define which ones, please?
Which ones? Morocans,Turks,Pakis,Iranians,etc

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 06:52 AM
Torture at times is the only way to get the enemy to co-operate. And if that information is very useful and may even save lives of the people on your side. Than why not?

So, if it is ok for your side to torture members of the other side, is it ok for them to torture you for the same purposes?

hardcorps
Thursday, June 10th, 2004, 12:01 PM
So, if it is ok for your side to torture members of the other side, is it ok for them to torture you for the same purposes?
No! That's why we're on different sides!

But seriously, real torture (in the medieval sense) demeans the doer as much as the recipient. I would, personally, be for more liberal use of the (humane) death sentence in indidputable cases. (Besides, 'truth serums' might well produce the equivalent of any amount of more gruesome options.)

I just hate how white people hear a word, like 'torture,' and their feelings and logic are immediately taken over by Judeo-Christian memes.

The enemies of our preservation, I believe, are not troubles by these niceties. (Not that their gloves are fully off, yet.)

Conquistador
Friday, June 11th, 2004, 06:48 AM
By Strengthandhonour:
Yes. I am an evil teenager who drives around running over older people. If I was in the position of torture, yes of course I would fear it! but what I meant was, Why should I have to be so worried about it? I know I don't do bad things. So are you a good person AKA crazy?

I was refering to typical human hypocrisy.


By Strengthandhonour:
The list your demmand. See all those Negroids that go around stealing? perhaps if they are tortured a bit some might stop. See those filthy Morocans in Barcelona that cause trouble? maybe if they are tortured they will change a bit.

I wouldn't torture them. I would deport them by force. :D


By Strengthandhonour:
Define which ones, please?
Which ones? Morocans,Turks,Pakis,Iranians,etc

You forgot the Blacks also. ;)

Moody
Friday, June 11th, 2004, 04:06 PM
Torture as a PUNISHMENT allows certain people with the propensity towards sadism [and masochism - how many people secretly WANT to be tortured?] to give full vent to their proclivities.

This makes for an enjoyable spectacle as far as many people are concerned [I presume that violent films etc., fufill this latent desire today in the 'civilised' West].

But torture as a tool to get information from captured enemy fighters is still necessary. Of course those who are employed to do the official torturing will often be those who "enjoy their jobs".

http://www2.infinit.com/archives/infos/international/irak/media/2003/09/20030917-052309-g.jpg

Oskorei
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 04:53 PM
I don't fear torture because I know I am a good person and would never commit a crime.
Never underestimate the idiocy of those in positions of power. Our ideas are semi-illegal in many countries, and no one knows what the future may hold in store. Do you think that those in power are too honest to frame political enemies for crimes they didnt commit?

Besides, torture is dishonourable and un-Aryan. I might hesitantly accept it in some cases of personal revenge, but the State should not degrade itself to this.

gorgeousgal2k2
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 08:44 PM
That's very wrong.

It's NEVER right to torture someone, even if they were the most evil person in the world.

Tryggvi
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 11:37 PM
That's very wrong.

It's NEVER right to torture someone, even if they were the most evil person in the world.
Torture cannot be justified as a punishment for crimes. It, however, can be justified to prevent future crimes and suffering.

Imagine the following scenario: A gang of criminals deposits a nuclear device in the underground of a big metropolis that shall, in accordance with their announcement and all intelligence information collected, detonate in a few hours time and will cost millions of lives and immense suffering to millions of children and women that will survive, severely injured or affected by radio-activity. It is too late to evacuate the town fully and to search the whole town for the device.

One of the criminals who in accordance with all intelligence information or by his own admission allegedly knows of the location of the device gets caught. Would it be justified to torture him in order to extract this information, so that all these deaths and suffering can be prevented? I think it would be. Even if there is only a certain probability, more likely than not, that he is aware of this information and that it can be extracted.

Needless to say, as this is an extraordinary measure, it will need extraordinary evidence.

As it is an extraordinary measure, it can only apply to concrete crimes in their development and not to vague possible potential future crimes, and, even less so, past crimes.

As it is an extraordinary measure, it can only affect those credibly considered to be involved in crimes and not innocent bystanders who are believed to be in possession of information.

As it is an extraordinary measure, the value of the information extracted must exceed the damage caused by the crime extraordinarily. It cannot apply to anything but murder or genocide.

In no way can such a judgment be left to the executive forces. It should need a qualified decision of the Constitutional Court, or, in case of emergency, the unanimous decision of a panel of senior judges.

The Italian proposal consequently has to be rejected by all means.

Mistress Klaus
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 08:13 PM
Never underestimate the idiocy of those in positions of power. Our ideas are semi-illegal in many countries, and no one knows what the future may hold in store. Do you think that those in power are too honest to frame political enemies for crimes they didnt commit?

Besides, torture is dishonourable and un-Aryan. I might hesitantly accept it in some cases of personal revenge, but the State should not degrade itself to this.

Well Klaus Barbie seemed to like to promote torture against suspected traitors of the Reich..(spikes in the bladder & so on).

I agree on torture of murderers of equal sadistic tendencies.

Vestmannr
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 09:49 PM
That's very wrong.

It's NEVER right to torture someone, even if they were the most evil person in the world.

Even Palestinians? ;) Torture is very common in Israel. In fact, we hired Israelis to torture prisoners in our present war (speaking of 'we' Americans.) I know, because when I was serving I thought that Turkish soldiers were cruel. Then we met our Israeli allies - now, they made the Turks seem Christian saints and holy men.

But, you *are* correct - it is never right to torture. My experience with the issue led in great part to my disenchantment with my own government.

gorgeousgal2k2
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 12:14 AM
Well If the Israelis are torturing palestinians, then that's not good. I dont agree with its use on anyone. Ever.

rhadley
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 05:45 AM
Torture cannot be justified as a punishment for crimes. It, however, can be justified to prevent future crimes and suffering.


.

Torture is quite simply dishonorable - it is cowardly bullying of a vile kind. It is in my view totally un-Aryan and uncivilized and therefore totally unacceptable. Those who conduct torture are simply cowards.

Would you like to be forcefully restrained by a group of bullies and tortured?

Who or what gives such bullies the power, the authority, to do what they do?

What is a "crime" anyways? Who decides? And why?

What is the basis of "law" - for us as Aryans?

I'm with Myatt in that law means honor. What is good is what is honorable; what is bad is what is dishonorable.

Further, real freedom also means honor - it means no persons inflicting themselves upon you and taking away your ability to defend yourself and your honor.

The modern world has gone crazy and is the world of the bully.

I say again - nothing justifies torture, no amount of "information" that could be obtained. If you torture, you have lost the moral high ground and shown yourself as a bully or as someone who approves of cowardly bullying.

Honor is more important than such "information" - if this is not understood, then honor itself is not understood.

Northern Paladin
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 05:32 PM
I find nothing wrong with torture as long as it is justified.

It is better for one man to be tortured if it will prevent suffering among the multitude.

That is to say if torture could prevent a terrorist attack I feel it would be justified.

rhadley
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 06:53 PM
I do not support the idea of torture except in extreme cases but I disagree with the fact that the 'bully' that tortures is a coward. It takes quite some courrage to rip someone's guts (both figurately and literally), to watch how he is in pain, how he growns etc. and then to know you are responsible for his mutilation/death. Of course, in a lot of cases the bully is a derranged person who enjoys sadism and blood shed.


Totally utterly disagree here. The question of "sadism" is irrelevant.

First, the person torured has to be restrained - you take away their honor by doing so. This forceful restraint is bullying. End of story.

Now - how you ever been restrained against your will? Do you know what that feels like?

To restrain someone like that and then do dishonorable things to them is cowardly - they cannot fight you; you have "power" over them. You have taken their honor away - that is cowardly.

Anyone of any honor would never do such a cowardly thing.

I state again - WHO decides what is "right" and that someone should be restrained against their will and tortured? What gives someone this "right"?

No one has answered, so I repeat - what is fair, just, good, is what is honorable. That is the basis for true justice - i.e. it is individual freedom, defined by and kept by personal honor, which defines what is right.


Now, until we Aryans start thinking like this, and living like this - with honor - we have no right whatsoever to crow about being civilized, let alone about being "superior" which is a dishonorable concept anyway.

rhadley
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 08:17 AM
but if the victim is a strong man, what makes you sure he is not going to break free and confront you

Now we are getting close to the essence of the matter IMNSHO.

If such a thing happens, we square up for a fair fight, man to man, one on one, as any really honorable warrior would wish.

This assumes we have the spirit, the training, of a real warrior - if we don't, why then it's our fault for not having these things! One of the principles of honor is being ready to defend one's self, and having the physical abilities acquired through training to do this.

Now, any restraint involving more than one person is IMNSHO dishonorable. It is cowardly. It is against the ethos of the true warrior. That for me is the end of the matter. If you or others don't understand this, you don't.

Yes, I also have been restrained by force by cowards who call themselves officers of the "law" - such restraint takes away your dignity, your honor.


I repeat yet again - what is right is what is honorable. Any law which does not allow for personal honor is wrong, immoral, and tyrannical because it takes away our honor.

Any servant or socalled "officer" of the "law" who tries to enforce a dishonorable law is acting in a dishonorable way and is therefore an agent of tyranny.

What is important is honor - this cannot be stressed enough. It's more important than any inforamtion obtained.

What is also important is our folk - and as Myatt says it is this combination of personal honor and respect for our folk which is genuine National Socialism.

Honor without an understanding of the folk is not NS, just as an udnerstanding of the folk without honor is not NS. if anything compromises our honor, or that of others, it is not National Socialist. This is indeed revolutionary. Shame so few seem to understand it.

As I said in an earlier reply we must move-on from the politics, the ways, the ideas, of the past - and we can do this by making both honor and the folk the basis of our lives.

rhadley
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 04:41 PM
, but in a situation of war for example one has to do dishonorable things too.



I disagree as strongly as it is possible to disagree.

We should be making a stand and saying - such dishonor, whatever the excuse give, is simply wrong. To act dishonorably is to dishonor yourself.

That is why modern warfare by its very nature is mostly dishonorable. We must accept we have taken a wrong turn, and that our modern weapons make us dishonorabe in war.

My point is - someone of honor would refuse to compromise their honor and would rather die than do a dishonorable deed.

What is most important - for a true warrior - is to live and die in an honorable way.

There is no excuse for doing anything dishonorable. But people always make excuses for being dishonorable and always try and justify doing something which is against their principles if that doing is easy, the easy way.

So - if this means you die, or "lose", then you do. What matters is HONOR. is this understood?

To so live and die in an honorable way is the mark of a real warrior. This is hard, but all it takes is an act of will.




If someone caught a relative of yours, let's say a wife or child and a dinamite was to blow up in a few hours, with you having no idea of the location of where he/she was, but that someone was suddenly caught by the police, would you agree for them not to torture him for the information or let your relative die?

I generally do not like answering what are often rigged hypothetical questions, but I make exception here, and say I would do what was honorable, which is for them to treat him in an honorable way, even if it meant someone I loved died. Were I to condone such dishonorable actions by others I myself would be acting dishonorably.

As I said, we can always make excuses for failing to be honorable. In your hypothetical scenario, I would make the hard decision to live by the principles I uphold. Anything else would be hypocritical.

gorgeousgal2k2
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 09:05 PM
I agree with all that Rhadley has said on this thread. Honor is very important.

Jack
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 10:15 AM
It is a dishonour to a man for him to do anything less than necessary to preserve his own being. The rules I live by do not have to be applicable to others. I have no issues with double standards unless they work against me :P

The Blond Beast
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 10:34 AM
American military honour is maintained in a perfunctory manner. Something intimately dishonourable like torturing the unsuspecting and defenseless (and probably innocent) is deemed unacceptable, but a situation in which the shame is somewhat distant from the act, like launching a missile that kills scores of civilians in an attempt to eliminate one or two insurgents, is matter of fact and has become routine.

Out of sight, out of mind...

rhadley
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 12:00 PM
American military honour is maintained in a perfunctory manner. Something intimately dishonourable like torturing the unsuspecting and defenseless (and probably innocent) is deemed unacceptable, but a situation in which the shame is somewhat distant from the act, like launching a missile that kills scores of civilians in an attempt to eliminate one or two insurgents, is matter of fact and has become routine.

Out of sight, out of mind...

Very true!

Such techniques of modern warfare are dishonorable and those who undertake them or condone them are acting dishonorably.

This needs to be said, and repeated until it is udnerstood.