Jedi Council Forums - How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Author	Topic: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
_Sublime_Skywalker_ Registered: May '04	Date Posted: 1/6 12:18pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	The Rebel Alliance aren't terrorists, they don't use fear as a means of intimidation and they aren't set on ruling the galaxy. The Rebel's are simply normal people who have witnessed the Empire's cruelty to it's maximized state. The Rebels are the only ones brave enough to challenge the Empire, unlike the Senate who might have been able to control this 33 years earlier by not falling to Palpataine's charm. Sure, they perform various attacks and even use some "cheap" warfare, but they are called the Rebels. How does the Empire justify their various attacks on the galaxy? -----signature----- 'You don't know the Power of the Darkside!'-Darth Vader
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
halibut Title: FF GSA & FF-UK RSA / Saga Mod Registered: Aug '00	Date Posted: 1/6 1:07pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	Palpatine was legally and legitimately elected to Chancellor, and was legally and legitimately granted emergency powers. Then he was accepted as Emperor (with thunderous applause). So the Rebels are indeed terrorists. -----signature----- They are not "songs", they are "tracks" or "cues" ROTJ - "It has a nice mix of muppets and patricide that you don't see very often" - Darthboba Everybody knows that the bird is the word!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 1/6 1:26pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	It may be convenient for you to label the Rebels as "terrorists" (whatever that may mean, exactly) in order to dismiss them as having a legitimate cause (whatever your reasons may be for doing this). But the fact remains that on-screen in the original film, the Empire commits acts of atrocity against unarmed civilians, fraudulently blames others for their own murderous actions, employs torture as an unchallenged means of interrogation, and destroys an entire planet which has no weapons. These acts fully justify armed opposition, whether you wish to label such opposition "terrorism" or not. -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
halibut Title: FF GSA & FF-UK RSA / Saga Mod Registered: Aug '00	Date Posted: 1/6 2:17pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: It may be convenient for you to label the Rebels as "terrorists" (whatever that may mean, exactly) in order to dismiss them as having a legitimate cause (whatever your reasons may be for doing this). But the fact remains that on-screen in the original film, the Empire commits acts of atrocity against unarmed civilians, fraudulently blames others for their own murderous actions, employs torture as an unchallenged means of interrogation, and destroys an entire planet which has no weapons. These acts fully justify armed opposition, whether you wish to label such opposition "terrorism" or not. Well, to be fair, I was being tongue-in-cheek about the terrorism thing (albeit the Palpatine stuff has credence) But 1) acts of atrocity against unarmed civilians 2) fraudulently blames others for their own murderous actions 3) employs torture as an unchallenged means of interrogation 4) destroys an entire planet which has no weapons 4) I agree with, but isn't that the same as 1). I'm not sure which onscreen "acts of atrocity" you're referring to 2) I'm undoubtedly missing the reference, but where is this seen? (It's late over here) 3) unchallenged? The 2 examples (Leia in ANH and Han in ESB) don't give any scope to being challenged. They are hidden away from anyone/thing that could challenge them. From the Empire's POV, they capture 2 known "terrorists" and use whatever means necessary to extract information from them. There's no onscreen evidence that this is a normal means of examination. We have examples recently that UK and US soldiers have done similar things to Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers being held. Yes, that's wrong, but does that make Al-Quaeda a legitimate rebellion? (This does not necessarily represent my own beliefs, but merely serves as means for discussion and debate) -----signature----- They are not "songs", they are "tracks" or "cues" ROTJ - "It has a nice mix of muppets and patricide that you don't see very often" - Darthboba Everybody knows that the bird is the word!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthApocalypse Registered: Apr '07	Date Posted: 1/6 3:03pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: It may be convenient for you to label the Rebels as "terrorists" (whatever that may mean, exactly) in order to dismiss them as having a legitimate cause (whatever your reasons may be for doing this). But the fact remains that on-screen in the original film, the Empire commits acts of atrocity against unarmed civilians, fraudulently blames others for their own murderous actions, employs torture as an unchallenged means of interrogation, and destroys an entire planet which has no weapons. These acts fully justify armed opposition, whether you wish to label such opposition "terrorism" or not. 1. Legitimate how? Attempting to overthrow a government that was legally approved by the people doesn't give you legitimacy. 2. Being unarmed doesn't mean you don't pose a threat. Alderaan was a known Rebel stronghold whose leaders and populace were engaged in treasonous acts against the Empire. 3. Who did the Empire blame for their actions? 4. The torture is true, but I hardly believe that gives the Rebels grounds to overthrow the Empire. -----signature----- Don't take life too seriously. Nobody gets out alive.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 1/6 3:03pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	1) acts of atrocity against unarmed civilians By this I mean the face-to-face slaughter of a) the Jawas and b) the Lars. 2) fraudulently blames others for their own murderous actions By this I mean blaming the Tusken Raiders. 3) employs torture as an unchallenged means of interrogation By this I mean that Vader tortures a) Cpt. Antilles and b) Leia to extract information from both. These acts go unchallenged by either superior or inferior officers, Leia with Gov. Tarkin's full knowledge and consent. These acts are presented in the context of the film as routine, day-to-day business for the Empire. (See below for further discussion of this point.) 4) destroys an entire planet which has no weapons With this I seek to distinguish the face-to-face murder of a handful of innocents from remote, planetary genocide. Genocide is arguably the more heinous of the two, but there is a difference between this distant, military strike and the close-up, face-to-face slaughter of unarmed persons. More on point #3: halibut posted: unchallenged? The 2 examples (Leia in ANH and Han in ESB) don't give any scope to being challenged. They are hidden away from anyone/thing that could challenge them. From the Empire's POV, they capture 2 known "terrorists" and use whatever means necessary to extract information from them. There's no onscreen evidence that this is a normal means of examination. We have examples recently that UK and US soldiers have done similar things to Iraq and Afghanistan soldiers being held. Yes, that's wrong, but does that make Al-Quaeda a legitimate rebellion? The acts of torture seen in 'ANH' and ESB are presented as routine, daily business. Vader tortures Antilles, Leia and later Han with no hesitation, no debate as to whether he ought to, and no challenge from any Imperial officer or soldier as to whether this is in accordance with some kind of galactic Geneva Convention. Admittedly such a challenge would be unnecessary to the plot, but its very omission from the on-screen events is proof that the Empire cares not a whit for such ethical codes or considerations. With respect to the point that UK and US soldiers have engaged in acts of torture, I would respond that the world community has vociferously protested against such acts, and condemned them as violations of basic human rights. The question "Does participation in acts of torture by UK and US soldiers make Al-Quaeda a legitimate rebellion?" is a non-sequitur, since obviously torture -- whomever it's visited upon -- does not itself decide whether the victim is morally righteous! -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
AdamBertocci Title: Manager: Fan Films Registered: Feb '02	Date Posted: 1/6 3:26pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	You've never heard the old joke about the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? But yes. One of my most famous quotes from this forum: ANH is essentially the story of a guy out in the desert who meets a crazy old man, joins a terrorist organization and blows up a government building... from a certain point of view. Then you get into the infamous question on if the Rebels killed civilian independent contractors on the second Death Star. Then you can apply this to an awful lot of good-vs-evil movies you've seen in your life. Rick McCallum loves you! -----signature----- "Run Leia Run", "The Chopped-Off Hands of Star Wars" and "The Fan Film Menace"... ... and now the award-winning "Brooklyn Force". Check 'em out. http://www.runleiarun.com
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 1/6 3:34pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	DarthApocalypse posted: 1. Legitimate how? Attempting to overthrow a government that was legally approved by the people doesn't give you legitimacy. 2. Being unarmed doesn't mean you don't pose a threat. Alderaan was a known Rebel stronghold whose leaders and populace were engaged in treasonous acts against the Empire. 3. Who did the Empire blame for their actions? 4. The torture is true, but I hardly believe that gives the Rebels grounds to overthrow the Empire. 1. Palpatine deceptively engineered this so-called "legal approval" of his totalitarian government by means of a staged, fraudulent war that resulted in galaxy-wide death tolls (of soldiers, civilians and Jedi Knights). Those murdered in the pursuit of one man's political ambitions deserve justice -- namely, an end to the regime that brought about these thousands, if not millions, of murders. 2. Precisely two leaders, Bail and Leia, and one vessel under their command were engaged in opposition to the totalitarian and murderous rule of the Empire. This does not warrant the genocide of what we can intelligently guess are at least millions, if not billions, of innocent people and other life-forms. 3. The Tuskens. 4. Okay, if routine acts of torture do not sway you, then perhaps planetary genocide will? No? In that case, I can only breathe a sigh of relief that you are not an elected official or otherwise a holder of political power! -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthApocalypse Registered: Apr '07	Date Posted: 1/6 3:52pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: By this I mean the face-to-face slaughter of a) the Jawas and b) the Lars. I highly doubt the Jawas had no weapons. They must have some way to protect against Tusken Raider attacks and in fact we see a Jawa using a gun in ANH. As for the Larses, that is regrettable and something I didn't agree with. Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: By this I mean blaming the Tusken Raiders. This I really don't see as a big deal. They didn't want the owners of the droids to know they were on to them, so they made it look like the Jawas were killed by a common Tusken raid. Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: By this I mean that Vader tortures a) Cpt. Antilles and b) Leia to extract information from both. These acts go unchallenged by either superior or inferior officers, Leia with Gov. Tarkin's full knowledge and consent. These acts are presented in the context of the film as routine, day-to-day business for the Empire. (See below for further discussion of this point.) I disagree. Using Vader actions as the measuring stick for daily Imperial routine is fallacious. I highly doubt that anyone would complain of Vader's use of torture around him, knowing his penchant to kill his own men. Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: With this I seek to distinguish the face-to-face murder of a handful of innocents from remote, planetary genocide. Genocide is arguably the more heinous of the two, but there is a difference between this distant, military strike and the close-up, face-to-face slaughter of unarmed persons. Again, unarmed =/= not threatening. Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: The acts of torture seen in 'ANH' and ESB are presented as routine, daily business. Vader tortures Antilles, Leia and later Han with no hesitation, no debate as to whether he ought to, and no challenge from any Imperial officer or soldier as to whether this is in accordance with some kind of galactic Geneva Convention. Admittedly such a challenge would be unnecessary to the plot, but its very omission from the on-screen events is proof that the Empire cares not a whit for such ethical codes or considerations. Same as above. What officer is going to tell Vader that he doesn't approve of his methods? Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: With respect to the point that UK and US soldiers have engaged in acts of torture, I would respond that the world community has vociferously protested against such acts, and condemned them as violations of basic human rights. The question "Does participation in acts of torture by UK and US soldiers make Al-Quaeda a legitimate rebellion?" is a non-sequitur, since obviously torture -- whomever it's visited upon -- does not itself decide whether the victim is morally righteous! It's not a non-sequitir. You claimed that the Rebellion against the Empire was justified for a number of reasons and you cited torture as one of those reasons. If torture of POW's is a valid reason for armed rebellion, then overthrowing the U.S. government would be justified using your reasoning. -----signature----- Don't take life too seriously. Nobody gets out alive.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_Starwalker Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Sep '03	Date Posted: 1/6 4:37pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire? - Date Edited: 1/6 4:41pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Master_Starwalker
	DarthApocalypse posted: Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: By this I mean the face-to-face slaughter of a) the Jawas and b) the Lars. I highly doubt the Jawas had no weapons. They must have some way to protect against Tusken Raider attacks and in fact we see a Jawa using a gun in ANH. As for the Larses, that is regrettable and something I didn't agree with. True, but that gun seems to simply stun droids. It likely would have no effect on humans. DarthApocalypse posted: Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: By this I mean that Vader tortures a) Cpt. Antilles and b) Leia to extract information from both. These acts go unchallenged by either superior or inferior officers, Leia with Gov. Tarkin's full knowledge and consent. These acts are presented in the context of the film as routine, day-to-day business for the Empire. (See below for further discussion of this point.) I disagree. Using Vader actions as the measuring stick for daily Imperial routine is fallacious. I highly doubt that anyone would complain of Vader's use of torture around him, knowing his penchant to kill his own men. Which doesn't make their silence any less repugnant. All it takes for evil to win is for good to do nothing. Those officers could have done any number of things if they had an ethical issue with Vader's cruelty. Two examples off the top of my head are that they could have staged a coup akin to Operation Valkyrie or they could have defected to the Rebellion. Vader's actions are the only Imperial actions we see regularly and nothing indicates that they aren't the norm. Can you prove that torture wasn't standard Imperial procedure? DarthApocalypse posted: Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: With respect to the point that UK and US soldiers have engaged in acts of torture, I would respond that the world community has vociferously protested against such acts, and condemned them as violations of basic human rights. The question "Does participation in acts of torture by UK and US soldiers make Al-Quaeda a legitimate rebellion?" is a non-sequitur, since obviously torture -- whomever it's visited upon -- does not itself decide whether the victim is morally righteous! It's not a non-sequitir. You claimed that the Rebellion against the Empire was justified for a number of reasons and you cited torture as one of those reasons. If torture of POW's is a valid reason for armed rebellion, then overthrowing the U.S. government would be justified using your reasoning. Of course, elections essentially serve that purpose given that they allow a bloodless transition of power. It's also worth pointing out that one side being evil doesn't necessarily mean the other side is good. One can view Bush's torture policies to be abhorrent while also viewing Al-Qaeda's means to be abhorrent. -----signature----- "Imaginary is the future. Always now, even eternity will be." - Yoda "We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves." - The 14th Dalai Lama
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Arawn_Fenn Registered: Jul '04	Date Posted: 1/6 4:44pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire? - Date Edited: 1/6 4:47pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Arawn_Fenn
	Master_Starwalker posted: that gun seems to simply stun droids. It likely would have no effect on humans. It would probably have some effect on humans, but possibly not much. Then again it depends on the human... In the video games it would do some damage, but that could be game mechanics. -----signature----- "You're both from strange little backwater planets. You both have odd powers. You're male and she's female. What more do you need? Believe me, buddy, if I were you, I'd go right up there and ask her if she wants to ride on my rancor." - Han Solo
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Master_Starwalker Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Sep '03	Date Posted: 1/6 4:51pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	True, I suppose it might have some effect on humans. However, I doubt it could do any damage through Stormtrooper armor. -----signature----- "Imaginary is the future. Always now, even eternity will be." - Yoda "We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves." - The 14th Dalai Lama
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Arawn_Fenn Registered: Jul '04	Date Posted: 1/6 5:01pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	It would probably mess Vader up somewhat... if you could get close enough. Which you wouldn't. -----signature----- "You're both from strange little backwater planets. You both have odd powers. You're male and she's female. What more do you need? Believe me, buddy, if I were you, I'd go right up there and ask her if she wants to ride on my rancor." - Han Solo
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Merlin_Ambrosius69 Registered: Aug '08	Date Posted: 1/6 5:48pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire? - Date Edited: 1/6 5:51pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Merlin_Ambrosius69
	DarthApocalypse posted: I highly doubt the Jawas had no weapons. They must have some way to protect against Tusken Raider attacks and in fact we see a Jawa using a gun in ANH. As for the Larses, that is regrettable and something I didn't agree with. Okay, let's grant that the Jawas had weapons. Does this in any way justify their mass murder by trained personnel? Does this in any way counter the contention that the Empire's human rights violations merit opposition? DarthApocalypse posted: [Blaming the Tusken Raiders] I really don't see as a big deal. They didn't want the owners of the droids to know they were on to them, so they made it look like the Jawas were killed by a common Tusken raid. Yes, I understand the events as depicted. Am I right in deducing from this that you have no objection to false accusations? In that case I would observe that you harbor a very unique view of international law. DarthApocalypse posted: I disagree [that torture is presented as routine]. Using Vader actions as the measuring stick for daily Imperial routine is fallacious. I highly doubt that anyone would complain of Vader's use of torture around him, knowing his penchant to kill his own men. ... What officer is going to tell Vader that he doesn't approve of his methods? And the fact that a military commander executes his own men is no indication to you of a regime that warrants opposition? DarthApocalypse posted: Again, unarmed =/= not threatening. The utter annihilation of millions or billions of human beings, animals, plants, other lifeforms, and the ecosystems that supported them is an act of unimaginable evil that must be defied. Surely you don't mean to suggest that the countless infants on the planet Alderaan were "threatening" to the Empire. Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: With respect to the point that UK and US soldiers have engaged in acts of torture, I would respond that the world community has vociferously protested against such acts, and condemned them as violations of basic human rights. The question "Does participation in acts of torture by UK and US soldiers make Al-Quaeda a legitimate rebellion?" is a non-sequitur, since obviously torture -- whomever it's visited upon -- does not itself decide whether the victim is morally righteous! DarthApocalypse posted: It's not a non-sequitur. You claimed that the Rebellion against the Empire was justified for a number of reasons and you cited torture as one of those reasons. If torture of POW's is a valid reason for armed rebellion, then overthrowing the U.S. government would be justified using your reasoning. Independent acts of torture, committed by individual groups of soldiers, later condemned by the public without governmental retaliation, in the context of an administration that will change within four years based on a republican election, is wholly distinct from institutional torture, committed by commanding officers and appointed officials, within the context of a dictatorship-for-life that quashes public dissent. You can see the difference there, can you not? -----signature----- "Chance makes playthings of us all." -- Seneca Shameless non-Manager Emeritus sock of Vortigern99. Fan of George RR Martin, JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthApocalypse Registered: Apr '07	Date Posted: 1/6 7:04pm Subject: RE: How Can The Alliance Justify Their Various Attacks On The Empire?
	Master_Starwalker posted: True, but that gun seems to simply stun droids. It likely would have no effect on humans. Depending on the type of ion gun it can either have no effect or seriously screw with a person's nervous system. Either way, I find it hard to believe that the Jawas have no lethal weaponry, considering the sheer volume of bounty hunters and criminals who have been killed on Tatooine, leaving behind salvageable equipment. Master_Starwalker posted: Which doesn't make their silence any less repugnant. All it takes for evil to win is for good to do nothing. Those officers could have done any number of things if they had an ethical issue with Vader's cruelty. Two examples off the top of my head are that they could have staged a coup akin to Operation Valkyrie or they could have defected to the Rebellion. Maybe you are correct and the officers should have started a coup. Or maybe they didn't think torturing known Rebels was that big of a deal. Or maybe they thought Vader knew what he was doing. Either way the fact the no officers said anything to Vader about his torture doesn't mean they agree or his actions were Imperial policy. It simply means they were smart enough to keep their mouth shut. Master_Starwalker posted: Vader's actions are the only Imperial actions we see regularly and nothing indicates that they aren't the norm. Can you prove that torture wasn't standard Imperial procedure? Every source indicates that Vader is above the law and does what everyone the hell he wants. The onus is on you the prove why Vader's actions are standard procedure. Would you also claim that killing officers is also standard procedure? After all Vader does it all the time, so it must be official practice, despite no other officers doing so in any source I can think of. Master_Starwalker posted: Of course, elections essentially serve that purpose given that they allow a bloodless transition of power. It's also worth pointing out that one side being evil doesn't necessarily mean the other side is good. One can view Bush's torture policies to be abhorrent while also viewing Al-Qaeda's means to be abhorrent. 1. The bloodless part is not true at all. Plenty of blood has been spilled during democratic elections. 2. I hesitate to use the labels good and evil, consider in war neither label applies. Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: Okay, let's grant that the Jawas had weapons. Does this in any way justify their mass murder by trained personnel? If they resisted the Imperials with force? Yes. After all the Ewoks only had sticks and rocks. The Jawas most likely have modern equipment. Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: Does this in any way counter the contention that the Empire's human rights violations merit opposition? Such as what? Alderaan? A planet who was actively committing treason? Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: Yes, I understand the events as depicted. Am I right in deducing from this that you have no objection to false accusations? In that case I would observe that you harbor a very unique view of international law. False accusation? The Empire wasn't accusing the Tuskens of doing anything. They simply created a deception to fool their enemies. Cops use deception during investigations and stings all the time. If they went after the Tuskens for this supposed "slaughter" or officially held them responsible then I could see your point. But they don't. Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: And the fact that a military commander executes his own men is no indication to you of a regime that warrants opposition? Vader don't not represent that standard Imperial commander. He follows his own laws. The actions of one man does not taint the whole government. Merlin_Ambrosius69 posted: The utter annihilation of millions or billions of human beings, animals, plants, other lifeforms, and the ecosystems that supported them is an act of unimaginable evil that must be defied. Surely you don't mean to suggest that the countless infants on the planet Alderaan were "threatening" to the Empire. No, but children die in every war and will continue to die in every war. The deaths of children are unfortunate, but can't be helped. [quote=Merlin_Ambrosius69]Independent acts of torture, committed by individual groups of soldiers,[/quote] How is this different from individual acts of torture committed by one individual (Vader)? [quote=Merlin_Ambrosius69]later condemned by the public without governmental retaliation, in the context of an administration that will change within four years based on a republican election,[/quote] Which remains to be seen if the polices change. Until you prove that the arrival of a new president will change the torture policy your point is meaningless. [quote=Merlin_Ambrosius69]is wholly distinct from institutional torture, committed by commanding officers and appointed officials, within the context of a dictatorship-for-life that quashes public dissent. You can see the difference there, can you not?[/quote] I see some differences. In one example, torture is a government approved activity, with different torture techniques used and a facility that holds suspects to be tortured. In the other example, torture is only committed by one man, with nothing indicating other officers approve or that the said actions are legal. -----signature----- Don't take life too seriously. Nobody gets out alive.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History