Torture [Archive] - JREF Forum

rikzilla

3rd March 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Now THAT I can agree with. But at some point America stops being America and we have become the enemy. You'll consider it a silly point, but if this option had been available in the 50's and 60's how much more terrible would the government intelligence abuses of that era have been? Imagine J. Edgar Hoover with the power to elicit confessions through torture. No, not in the America I love, over my dead body.

I barely trust the Government to put the right people to death. If we suddenly start torturing people, this is no longer the America I love.

But you're right - we mustn't be hypocritical about it.

I agree...but consider what I said about the "ticking bomb terrorist" ...say a guy we know is part of a plot as large as 9/11 and the only way to save 3,000 people is through government sanctioned...judicially reviewed....(in other words "lawful") non-lethal torture.

Is it more immoral to subject a known terrorist to unspeakable pain than it is to do nothing and allow the deaths of 3,000 people? I think not. Like abortion...the devil is in the details. Where we draw the line is most important. That's where the debate will be.

-zilla

PogoPedant

3rd March 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

I agree...but consider what I said about the "ticking bomb terrorist" ...say a guy we know is part of a plot as large as 9/11 and the only way to save 3,000 people is through government sanctioned...judicially reviewed....(in other words "lawful") non-lethal torture.

Is it more immoral to subject a known terrorist to unspeakable pain than it is to do nothing and allow the deaths of 3,000 people? I think not. Like abortion...the devil is in the details. Where we draw the line is most important. That's where the debate will be.

-zilla
Methinks you need to think long and hard about what exactly you're standing for. Is it the ideals that once were american (you know, equality, justice for all, and all that), or is it the survival of american citizens, to hell with the rest? If you allow for torure in any case, anywhere, then there's really no reason why you should cry foul if any of your own got tortured.
I suppose this is hard to get, but it's quite reasonable to assume that the 9/11 people thought they were the good guys...

3rd March 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by PogoPedant

Methinks you need to think long and hard about what exactly you're standing for. Is it the ideals that once were american (you know, equality, justice for all, and all that), or is it the survival of american citizens, to hell with the rest?

You've put your finger on it. Some are SO scared by recent events that they have adopted a seige mentality; excusing anything at all on the grounds that our very survival is at stake.

Marry in haste, repent in leisure. We'll have 50 years of living this all down if we don't think clearly now.

Saturn

3rd March 2003, 10:48 AM

I don't think torture should ever be allowed under U.S. law, nor should the U.S. extradite terrorists to countries that allow it (that is even worse than American officials administering torture themselves, as it just adds hypocrisy). The only time when I could see it be morally justified is an immediate need to save lives. For example, if a terrorist group is known to have a nuclear bomb in New York City so we need to find out exactly where it is. But even in those circumstances, I believe that the officials should administer torture and then be prosecuted for it afterwards. That way, the law is upheld and we wouldn't start down a slippery slope towards routine use of torture.

Bjorn

3rd March 2003, 10:55 AM

The good old war movies!

Kirk Douglas maybe, at least some big strong American guys with tough smiles as they took off to fight small Germans or Japanese with bad teeth.

If they were taken prisoners, they only told rank, name and number - so the cruel enemy often tried to torture them to make them tell where the rest of the troops were hiding.

Not that they would break down, of course, and if they felt they would, they often preferred to end their own lives to save others. Usually, they would have time to whisper to another prisoner: If you get home, tell my mother there was no pain.

Oh, my childhood heroes.

And now I hear Americans saying:

Come to think about it, if it gets us some info, maybe those Japs had some good ideas after all .... ?

rikzilla

3rd March 2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by PogoPedant

Methinks you need to think long and hard about what exactly you're standing for. Is it the ideals that once were american (you know, equality, justice for all, and all that), or is it the survival of american citizens, to hell with the rest? If you allow for torure in any case, anywhere, then there's really no reason why you should cry foul if any of your own got tortured.
I suppose this is hard to get, but it's quite reasonable to assume that the 9/11 people thought they were the good guys...

What I am standing for in this example is saving 3,000 lives through the lawful administration of non-lethal torture.

Would you suggest that allowing those people to die is a more moral prospect??

-zilla

Jon_in_london

3rd March 2003, 11:11 AM

oh, nevermind

toddjh

3rd March 2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
What I am standing for in this example is saving 3,000 lives through the lawful administration of non-lethal torture.

Would you suggest that allowing those people to die is a more moral prospect??

It's easy to think something is good when you only consider it being used responsibly. As with any power we'd consider granting to the government, start by asking yourself how it might be abused, and what the consequences would be then.

Jeremy

rikzilla

3rd March 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by toddjh

It's easy to think something is good when you only consider it being used responsibly. As with any power we'd consider granting to the government, start by asking yourself how it might be abused, and what the consequences would be then.

Jeremy

That's the whole point Jeremy...

It's dialog that's missing right now. Almost nobody here is operating under the opinion that KSM is not being tortured. But since some 3rd country's intel agents are doing it for us that's supposed to be ok? *********. What's missing is the open debate in the US about using such means as torture. The only place I've seen such a debate is right here, right now on this forum.

Why? Why can't we bring these ********** here and have a public debate as to what should be done with them? If it is unconstitutional to torture (cruel and unusual punishment) then why are we allowing it to happen...while officially denying it's happening? IMHO it would be far more honest to amend the constitution and say "yes we'll do this under certain circumstances...and here are the circumstances" rather than just be morally above it all and say "it doesn't happen here" while averting our eyes and letting it happen there.

Honestly, I would be more comfortable with legalized torture...than unlegalized and unrestricted torture going on behind the scenes. In an open society there is supposed to be a public debate about our policy....this has taken on the mantle as "undebateable policy"....undebateable policy has no business in an open democratic society.

-zilla

subgenius

3rd March 2003, 12:52 PM

All they need to do is lock him in a room with an insurance salesman.

fishbob

3rd March 2003, 01:16 PM

If we become like them to fight them, then no matter who wins, we lose.

toddjh

3rd March 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla
That's the whole point Jeremy...

It's dialog that's missing right now. Almost nobody here is operating under the opinion that KSM is not being tortured. But since some 3rd country's intel agents are doing it for us that's supposed to be ok? *********. What's missing is the open debate in the US about using such means as torture. The only place I've seen such a debate is right here, right now on this forum.

Why? Why can't we bring these ********** here and have a public debate as to what should be done with them?

Politics. People in high-profile positions have too much to lose to be seen as a "terrorist sympathizer." The religious and cultural tribalism that the U.S. government has fostered in the last year and a half has made disagreement with any treatment of "the enemy" a thought crime.

If it is unconstitutional to torture (cruel and unusual punishment) then why are we allowing it to happen...while officially denying it's happening? IMHO it would be far more honest to amend the constitution and say "yes we'll do this under certain circumstances...and here are the circumstances" rather than just be morally above it all and say "it doesn't happen here" while averting our eyes and letting it happen there.

Honestly, I would be more comfortable with legalized torture...than unlegalized and unrestricted torture going on behind the scenes.

I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. It's one thing for a corrupt government to commit atrocities out of the view of the people, but it's another to live in a society that actually condones such behavior openly. What would it say about us if the government didn't even need to hide its torture of suspects?

I agree, though, that the two are morally equivalent from the point of view of the one doing the torturing.

Now, how about this: from what I've heard, Pakistan is brutal in its interrogation of prisoners. Is it ethical to threaten to turn Mohammed over to the Pakistani authorities if he doesn't cooperate with the U.S.? Can creating fear of torture be considered cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself?

Jeremy

DanishDynamite

3rd March 2003, 01:23 PM

Supercharts:I think we should do anything to this man we need to in order to get information out of him as long as he is not on US ground. Hypocracy is alive and well.

Tmy:The guys not a citizen so screw em'. BUT it may make it tough to take the moral high ground if the terrorsist start tourturing people. You think?

rikzilla:If the torture of a "ticking bomb" terrorist could save many lives...then it should be done...and done legally, under our own laws. Whether or not the torturing of a prisoner would result in the saving of lives, would of course only be known after the tortured had spilled his guts. But hey, as long as its lawful, its alright. The law is afterall infallible. OK, maybe not everyone on deathrow is actually guilty, and OJ probably was, but as the saying goes: you win some, you lose some.

And after torture has been made legit, perhaps it was time to see if the internment of "mid-eastern" types in camps, couldn't be made so as well. Its hard to know which of these types can be trusted, and such internments were used under WWII, so there is even a precedent.

Oh, and how about making phone-tapping mandatory? The US is at war, afterall. Who knows who is loyal and who isn't.

Yep, I think there's a whole bunch of unpleasant realities which should be debated and then made legal.

FFed

3rd March 2003, 01:25 PM

I am sure this guy would slit the throat of every American he came across. But oh no, we can't torture him. Maybe if he was asked really nicely he would tell them anything they wanted to know.

So you bring this guy over, and have a debate about torture while this guy sits in prison. A debate that will never end, like gun control, abortion, etc. Keep this guy where he is, torture the hell out of him, and get as much information as you can. Who knows what him and his buddies have been planning.

3rd March 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by FFed
I am sure this guy would slit the throat of every American he came across. But oh no, we can't torture him. Maybe if he was asked really nicely he would tell them anything they wanted to know.

So you bring this guy over, and have a debate about torture while this guy sits in prison. A debate that will never end, like gun control, abortion, etc. Keep this guy where he is, torture the hell out of him, and get as much information as you can. Who knows what him and his buddies have been planning.

And when reports start coming back about our servicemen and women being tortured in the coming war, it will not be the fault of those feeling the way you do because:

Victor Danilchenko

3rd March 2003, 01:40 PM

A quote about wrestling with abyss and staring into monsters comes to mind... Some famous syphilitic guy said it though, and he wasn't even american, so we needn't listen to him. :eek:

specious_reasons

3rd March 2003, 02:00 PM

I have two problems with torture.

1. Much like sundog, I think we can barely trust the government with the death penalty. Torture would be abused, even with controls.

2. I thought that torture does not produce quality information. I got the impression that someone being tortured would admit to anything in order to have it stop.

So, how much torture do we apply to ensure that they're no longer lying? Who makes that decision?

It's icky. rikzilla is right, we shouldn't be hypocritical about it, but I'm not willing to let our government have that "right" over me.

FFed

3rd March 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by sundog

And when reports start coming back about our servicemen and women being tortured in the coming war, it will not be the fault of those feeling the way you do because:

Because they have been doing torture long before this guy was captured.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/iraq_GMA030220POW_lawsuit.html

3rd March 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by FFed

Because they have been doing torture long before this guy was captured.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/US/iraq_GMA030220POW_lawsuit.html

It doesn't worry you at all that, quite obviously, others would see this as an excuse to torture American soldiers?

Never mind that it's happened in the past; it doesn't bother you to give them more reasons? After all, we'd no longer be able to act outraged about it. Just another fact of war, if we do it too. We wouldn't even have a right to complain.

That's all OK with you? Because if it happens, I'll be reminding you.

Megalodon

3rd March 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla
It's dialog that's missing right now. Almost nobody here is operating under the opinion that KSM is not being tortured. But since some 3rd country's intel agents are doing it for us that's supposed to be ok? *********. What's missing is the open debate in the US about using such means as torture. The only place I've seen such a debate is right here, right now on this forum.

No, that's not ok. Torture is illegal, imoral, plain wrong. Question him, submit him to a fair trial and act accordingly. To have a prisioner in custody makes him your responsability...

If you turn him to someone that will torture him for you, then you failed that responsability.

Why? Why can't we bring these ********** here and have a public debate as to what should be done with them? If it is unconstitutional to torture (cruel and unusual punishment) then why are we allowing it to happen...while officially denying it's happening?

I don't know why. But its not the first or the last time it happens.

IMHO it would be far more honest to amend the constitution and say "yes we'll do this under certain circumstances...and here are the circumstances" rather than just be morally above it all and say "it doesn't happen here" while averting our eyes and letting it happen there.

Yup, that should do it. Only terrorists... but of course, for the torture to have any kind of success, it should be done before the deed. So who are you going to torture? The potential terrorrists... communists, troublemakers...

That's the way it's been happening all over the world, in every dictatorship...

Honestly, I would be more comfortable with legalized torture...than unlegalized and unrestricted torture going on behind the scenes. In an open society there is supposed to be a public debate about our policy....this has taken on the mantle as "undebateable policy"....undebateable policy has no business in an open democratic society.

-zilla

Until, of course they come for you or for someone you love.
I would be happier if I heard you guys defend the Human Rights you are preaching all over.
Remember, state always starts by removing the rights of the groups that nobody likes...

Your problem seems to be: we are using a third state to torture him, so let's stop being hypocrites and torture him ourselves.

The alternative is: we are using a third state to torture him, so let's stop it.

Of course you all want your revenge from 9/11, but for that first you have to have a trial, and convict the guy... at least that was supposed to be "the american way" :(

3rd March 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Megalodon
Of course you all want your revenge from 9/11, but for that first you have to have a trial, and convict the guy... at least that was supposed to be "the american way" :(

But see, this is the new America Lite.

Our brave new statesmen in this brave new world are redefining America by the seat of their pants. Military tribunals, that's ok, we need 'em. Wiretaps, secret imprisonment, that's OK, we need them. Torture, sure, why not? As long as it solves the problem of the moment. Unamerican? Hey buddy, you want some too?

I am astonished at the lack of foresight or imagination among the Rewriting Right these days. It's as if they can't imagine a month into the future.

billydkid

3rd March 2003, 03:33 PM

You don't actually have to physically torture someone to get whatever information you want from them. It really doesn't take much for a person to have their identitied fragmented to the the point where whatever they are defending becomes meaningless. Of course this would not apply in the ticking bomb situation where you have no time. I really can not see how you can morally defend not torturing someone if it means saving a whole bunch of other people. Remember, it is the proposed torture victim who holds the card and he is the instigator. It would be his choice to endure torture rather than divulge. However, I don't think these decisions should be made by a couple of guys in cell somewhere. Or maybe they should be made by rogue operators who are willing to bear the burden of such difficult moral choices. Should you torture one person in order to end the torture of, say, a dozen others?

billydkid

3rd March 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by sundog

It doesn't worry you at all that, quite obviously, others would see this as an excuse to torture American soldiers?

Never mind that it's happened in the past; it doesn't bother you to give them more reasons? After all, we'd no longer be able to act outraged about it. Just another fact of war, if we do it too. We wouldn't even have a right to complain.

That's all OK with you? Because if it happens, I'll be reminding you.

In every war, every conflict, soldiers are routinely tortured and murdered. Americans do it and Americans are tortured. They don't need new reasons. Be clear, war IS killing people. That is all it is. We don't know a fraction of the horendous things that go on in the world.

Br000chie

3rd March 2003, 04:25 PM

Whilst torture might be the favourite passtime of some tin-pot dictators I would suggest that its not a means of getting the truth. After all, the dictator is probably only interested in getting a signature on the bottom of a confession or simply instilling fear of retribution in any of his citizens that might rise against him. The guilt of the party being tortured is of no concern.

For a "civilised" western nation to become involved in the practises of torture in the hope of gaining meaningful information is misguided to say the least.

3rd March 2003, 04:27 PM

True, but one should not overlook the pure entertainment value present in this particular situation.

Supercharts

3rd March 2003, 04:27 PM

"U.S. officials would not discuss interrogation methods, except to say that "all appropriate techniques" and "the full-range of permissible interrogation techniques" were being employed without crossing the line into torture."
...
"The standard for any type of interrogation of somebody in American custody is to be humane and to follow all international laws and accords dealing with this type of subject. That is precisely what has been happening and exactly what will happen," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said."

International laws and accords. What are they? Anyone have a link?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=2&cid=578&u=/nm/20030303/ts_nm/attack_qaeda_dc

Supercharts

3rd March 2003, 05:01 PM

El Bumpo

corplinx

3rd March 2003, 05:46 PM

Torture only gets people to tell you things to get them you to stop torturing them. I have been told that people "debriefing" men like him know better than to torture since the data you get isn't reliable.

My only regret is that we will need to keep him alive indefinitely as an information source. I would have like to have seen him put before a tribunal and summarily executed.

3rd March 2003, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Tmy
The guys not a citizen so screw em'. BUT it may make it tough to take the moral high ground if the terrorsist start tourturing people.

Some people believe KSM is the man who tortured and killed Daniel Pearl. You know, that reporter whose murder was on video on the internet?

Regardless, I think tit for tat is a lousy argument.

FFed

3rd March 2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by sundog

It doesn't worry you at all that, quite obviously, others would see this as an excuse to torture American soldiers?

Never mind that it's happened in the past; it doesn't bother you to give them more reasons? After all, we'd no longer be able to act outraged about it. Just another fact of war, if we do it too. We wouldn't even have a right to complain.

That's all OK with you? Because if it happens, I'll be reminding you.
ya, just forget it happened. And while your at it, forget about sept 11.

Make sure you remind me when it happens. After all, it will all be my fault.

Bjorn

3rd March 2003, 08:26 PM

Imagine,

They just captured a guy who knows about the next terrorist action in the US.

He happens to be FFed's father-in-law, and the grandfather of his kids.

He refuses to speak, even during torture, but as a quick move to save 3,000 other people it has been decided to torture FFed's 11 year old daughter - everybody knows he loves her.

They have two days before they must have the information. In the end, she will be gang-raped in front of the rest of the family as a last attempt to stop the terror. After all, one life wasted to save 3,000 looks like a profit.

Make it 300,000 people. Make it five boys, screaming, testicles crushed. 60,000 to 1, wow, we're winning all the time! (If we get the information, that is.)

Is this what we want? Use whatever means necessary to save the lifes of others?

Or maybe we should only torture those who are 'guilty' of something? Convicted in court, of course, not by an over-eager enemy on a battle-field.

And if they don't talk? Where's the wife!!!? We have lifes to save! :(

Sorry, I don't get it.

corplinx

3rd March 2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Imagine,

They just captured a guy who knows about the next terrorist action in the US.

He happens to be FFed's father-in-law, and the grandfather of his kids.

He refuses to speak, even during torture, but as a quick move to save 3,000 other people it has been decided to torture FFed's 11 year old daughter - everybody knows he loves her.

They have two days before they must have the information. In the end, she will be gang-raped in front of the rest of the family as a last attempt to stop the terror. After all, one life wasted to save 3,000 looks like a profit.

Make it 300,000 people. Make it five boys, screaming, testicles crushed. 60,000 to 1, wow, we're winning all the time! (If we get the information, that is.)

Is this what we want? Use whatever means necessary to save the lifes of others?

Or maybe we should only torture those who are 'guilty' of something? Convicted in court, of course, not by an over-eager enemy on a battle-field.

And if they don't talk? Where's the wife!!!? We have lifes to save! :(

Sorry, I don't get it.

Too bad there isn't a situation currently going on remotely like this or with tangents that relate to it. Sounds like a good movie script though.

Bjorn

3rd March 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by corplinx

Too bad there isn't a situation currently going on remotely like this or with tangents that relate to it. Sounds like a good movie script though. True - hmm, come to think about it, could torture be such a tangent?

Where do you put the limit? :confused: Case by case? Only for terrorists? Only non-citizens? Only if we can save, say, 100 times more people than we have to torture?

Or no rules?

Jedi Knight

3rd March 2003, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
True - hmm, come to think about it, could torture be such a tangent?

Where do you put the limit? :confused: Case by case? Only for terrorists? Only non-citizens? Only if we can save, say, 100 times more people than we have to torture?

Or no rules?

It is a question of philosphical ethics.

If a man uses all his energy while on this earth to plan, organize and execute terrorist acts against innocent people, naturally the information that is inside his cranium would be of use to those who would like to stop those terrorist acts.

There are acts that men commit that can be judged in normal venues. Those acts can even be marginally horrendous.

However, we are talking about a man who organized a series of civilian aircraft (filled with people) with 100,000 pounds of jet fuel on each of them to fly into skyscrapers killing thousands of Americans and international citizens.

That is not simply a horrendous act--that is beyond horrendous. It is echelons above horrendous.

So as I think of that guy, I thinking of him strapped to a metal mattress spring with it hardwired with 115 volts and when the loyal American who turns the power regulator up spins the little copper dial, people a mile away are wondering why their lightbulbs are dimming.

That is what I think of when I think of Al Qaida. I am thinking an American behind the electrode dial with earplugs on while the terrorist is doing the Zeus dance on the mattress spring. And then maybe, just maybe, 10 hours later the questions start to get asked.

JK

corplinx

3rd March 2003, 09:14 PM

Well, torture is not the modus operandi for how they extract information in these cases. Its the worst way to get info.

All of a sudden everyone is running around screaming "Torture" and reminding me of a certain storybook hen who cried "the sky is falling".

In each case, the event they fear is not submitted by evidence.

Bjorn

3rd March 2003, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
Well, torture is not the modus operandi for how they extract information in these cases. Its the worst way to get info.

All of a sudden everyone is running around screaming "Torture" and reminding me of a certain storybook hen who cried "the sky is falling".

In each case, the event they fear is not submitted by evidence. It is not, and I am not trying to say it is.

I'm just trying to argue those who post:

Anything and everything should be used. Then use a steamroller starting at the feet and move up nice and slow. Or this:

I am thinking an American behind the electrode dial with earplugs on while the terrorist is doing the Zeus dance on the mattress spring. And then maybe, just maybe, 10 hours later the questions start to get asked. Nazis did such things, and some others we didn't like. :(

Jedi Knight

3rd March 2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Nazis did such things, and some others we didn't like. :(

True, but they were evil; we are righteous.

JK

Bjorn

3rd March 2003, 10:03 PM

In clear English, you seem to say:

Nazis tortured because they were evil; if we do it it's because we are righteous.

Jedi, I suggest you copyright it. Or add it to your sig, just to remind us oldies and let the newbies recognize you early. :(

Jedi Knight

3rd March 2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Bjorn
In clear English, you seem to say:

Nazis tortured because they were evil; if we do it it's because we are righteous.

Jedi, I suggest you copyright it. Or add it to your sig, just to remind us oldies and let the newbies recognize you early. :(

The Nazis tortured to bring momentum to evil, while we should torture terrorists to gather information to stop evil.

They are completely different philosophical issues of ethics. If you can't see the United States as the good guy, I don't know what else to tell you.

I have no sympathy for the terrorists.

JK

fishbob

4th March 2003, 12:16 AM

JK - this is the old "end justifies the means" argument. 50 years from now, we will be judged for the actions of our country. Our reasons for those actions will not matter. If our actions are barbaric, we will be judged barbaric, and the world will treat us as barbarians far into the future. What a legacy for your grandchildren.

There will always be some in authority who want to take a rubber hose to some guy in handcuffs, to get at the truth, but our justice system is based on assigning guilt before punishment. We are supposed to do the right thing. If we won't live up to our own standards, we will have no respect from the rest of the world.

Troll

4th March 2003, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Imagine,

They just captured a guy who knows about the next terrorist action in the US.

He happens to be FFed's father-in-law, and the grandfather of his kids.

He refuses to speak, even during torture, but as a quick move to save 3,000 other people it has been decided to torture FFed's 11 year old daughter - everybody knows he loves her.

They have two days before they must have the information. In the end, she will be gang-raped in front of the rest of the family as a last attempt to stop the terror. After all, one life wasted to save 3,000 looks like a profit.

Make it 300,000 people. Make it five boys, screaming, testicles crushed. 60,000 to 1, wow, we're winning all the time! (If we get the information, that is.)

Is this what we want? Use whatever means necessary to save the lifes of others?

Or maybe we should only torture those who are 'guilty' of something? Convicted in court, of course, not by an over-eager enemy on a battle-field.

And if they don't talk? Where's the wife!!!? We have lifes to save! :(

Sorry, I don't get it.

yeah okay, I can deal with that scenario. No big. Got another?

Troll

4th March 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Imagine,

They just captured a guy who knows about the next terrorist action in the US.

He happens to be FFed's father-in-law, and the grandfather of his kids.

He refuses to speak, even during torture, but as a quick move to save 3,000 other people it has been decided to torture FFed's 11 year old daughter - everybody knows he loves her.

They have two days before they must have the information. In the end, she will be gang-raped in front of the rest of the family as a last attempt to stop the terror. After all, one life wasted to save 3,000 looks like a profit.

Make it 300,000 people. Make it five boys, screaming, testicles crushed. 60,000 to 1, wow, we're winning all the time! (If we get the information, that is.)

Is this what we want? Use whatever means necessary to save the lifes of others?

Or maybe we should only torture those who are 'guilty' of something? Convicted in court, of course, not by an over-eager enemy on a battle-field.

And if they don't talk? Where's the wife!!!? We have lifes to save! :(

Sorry, I don't get it.

and it's obvious that you don't get it.

How the hell do you torture those only convictred when in a time constraint situation? It severely limits your information

Megalodon

4th March 2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by billydkid
You don't actually have to physically torture someone to get whatever information you want from them. It really doesn't take much for a person to have their identitied fragmented to the the point where whatever they are defending becomes meaningless.

That's torture also. What in this thread made you think we were only discussing physical torture?

Of course this would not apply in the ticking bomb situation where you have no time. I really can not see how you can morally defend not torturing someone if it means saving a whole bunch of other people.

How many people saved makes a torture session right? How about a torture session with a wrong person?

What if the ticking bomb is in a power plant, and it will be a big incovenient for a million people? is it right then?

What if you need to know were the rest of the gang is (they are troublemakers, all of them), is it right?

Were do you draw the line? Mine was drawn a long time ago...

Remember, it is the proposed torture victim who holds the card and he is the instigator. It would be his choice to endure torture rather than divulge.

The Department of State Security, durin the dictatorship in Portugal, used to say more or less the same thing :(

However, I don't think these decisions should be made by a couple of guys in cell somewhere. Or maybe they should be made by rogue operators who are willing to bear the burden of such difficult moral choices.

Actually, I can't see why you think this is a difficult moral choice. And if some "rogue operator" decides to torture a prisione, he should be held accountable.

Should you torture one person in order to end the torture of, say, a dozen others?

you tell me...

Megalodon

4th March 2003, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Troll

yeah okay, I can deal with that scenario. No big. Got another?

You are pitiful. You don't deserve a second of the freedom your forefathers won for you :(

Troll

4th March 2003, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

You are pitiful. You don't deserve a second of the freedom your forefathers won for you :(

You're going to argue me with personal opinion?

It's your life I may be saving by kneecapping the guy. You don't care?

Your daughter is a peron he would use to gain attention. Her rape and murder and all this video taped is hiw weapon. But you don't care?

I know his mind better than you. I've been trained to think like him. I can be him if I need to be. And you don't care?

Troll

4th March 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

You are pitiful. You don't deserve a second of the freedom your forefathers won for you :(

By the way, been in combat, same as most of my family/forefathers.

I deserve it. do you?

Troll

4th March 2003, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

You are pitiful. You don't deserve a second of the freedom your forefathers won for you :(

Well the hell with it. You called me pitiful so let me sink to your level.

You're a wuss. You want the freeom, but you're afraid to do what it takes to get it.

You want others to have the balls to get things for you

Megalodon

4th March 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Troll

You're going to argue me with personal opinion?

Not exactly. Just venting some steam after reading your post

It's your life I may be saving by kneecapping the guy. You don't care?

It's you they're kneecapping to save my life. You never knew me in your life. Do you care?

Your daughter is a peron he would use to gain attention. Her rape and murder and all this video taped is hiw weapon. But you don't care?

They rape your daugjter to make you talk. You still don't know anything. Do you care?

I know his mind better than you. I've been trained to think like him. I can be him if I need to be. And you don't care?

Yes I care. That someone civilized can turn himself into a savage, give way to his most primal instincts of hate and revenge, and then claim it was for liberty sake... well, I care

By the way, been in combat, same as most of my family/forefathers.

I deserve it. do you?

Being in combat doesn't make you worthy of anything, by itself. Your complete disregard for human rights puts you in line with the very monsters you aim to strike down...

Troll

4th March 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

Not exactly. Just venting some steam after reading your post

[B]

It's you they're kneecapping to save my life. You never knew me in your life. Do you care?

[B]

They rape your daugjter to make you talk. You still don't know anything. Do you care?

[B]

Yes I care. That someone civilized can turn himself into a savage, give way to his most primal instincts of hate and revenge, and then claim it was for liberty sake... well, I care

[B]

Being in combat doesn't make you worthy of anything, by itself. Your complete disregard for human rights puts you in line with the very monsters you aim to strike down...

I'm sorry. But it does. I know what they would do. Yet you call me evil for beating them to it.

Naive is not a term for you. Because you know this **** happens.

Traitor or fool is a better term for you. You pick I'm tired.

Megalodon

4th March 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Well the hell with it. You called me pitiful so let me sink to your level.

After your post, I thought pitiful was rather benign

You're a wuss.

Fair enough, it's your opinion, and I opened the hostilities :)
BTW, no, I am not, but don't think you'll have the chance to find out

You want the freeom, but you're afraid to do what it takes to get it.

You want others to have the balls to get things for you

No, thats not accurate. Nobody ever got anything for me. All I have and acomplished in my life was based on my will and work.

If at sometime I see my basic freedoms being removed, like it happened before in Portugal, I will stand against it. Although I was born after the Revolution, the memories of those around me are strong reminders of the dangers of a totalitarian state.

When it comes to your country, all I can do is give my opinion, and hope for the best. I think your problem (and I'm glad it is so, let me point out) is that you never had to fear being dragged out of your home, in the middle of the night, and tortured, just because some a-hole who doesn't like you snitched you to State Security.

But you could try to look into the multiple examples around the world, and learn the dangers of a state sponsoring torture...

Troll

4th March 2003, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

Not exactly. Just venting some steam after reading your post

[B]

It's you they're kneecapping to save my life. You never knew me in your life. Do you care?

[B]

They rape your daugjter to make you talk. You still don't know anything. Do you care?

[B]

Yes I care. That someone civilized can turn himself into a savage, give way to his most primal instincts of hate and revenge, and then claim it was for liberty sake... well, I care

[B]

Being in combat doesn't make you worthy of anything, by itself. Your complete disregard for human rights puts you in line with the very monsters you aim to strike down...

By the way, I've nothing to lose. so come at me and mine. You'll be hard pressed for it, but hey, it's your call to try to find others than me and me alone, wuss

Troll

4th March 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

After your post, I thought pitiful was rather benign

[B]

Fair enough, it's your opinion, and I opened the hostilities :)
BTW, no, I am not, but don't think you'll have the chance to find out

[B]

No, thats not accurate. Nobody ever got anything for me. All I have and acomplished in my life was based on my will and work.

If at sometime I see my basic freedoms being removed, like it happened before in Portugal, I will stand against it. Although I was born after the Revolution, the memories of those around me are strong reminders of the dangers of a totalitarian state.

When it comes to your country, all I can do is give my opinion, and hope for the best. I think your problem (and I'm glad it is so, let me point out) is that you never had to fear being dragged out of your home, in the middle of the night, and tortured, just because some a-hole who doesn't like you snitched you to State Security.

But you could try to look into the multiple examples around the world, and learn the dangers of a state sponsoring torture...

maybe not in my country. But yet, Ironically, in protecting my country that has happened.

so don't presume you can lecture me on liberties lost.

Megalodon

4th March 2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Naive is not a term for you. Because you know this **** happens.

Yes, I know. And that knowledge is a burden

Traitor or fool is a better term for you. You pick I'm tired.

You're the one who is willing to disregard all that your country supposedly stands for, and I am a traitor?

Your logic is astounding.

Oh, and BTW, Fool is another poster :)

Kevin_Lowe

4th March 2003, 01:49 AM

I never cease to be disappointed by Americans.

Point one. This is the JREF forum, right? Where, I ask you, is the -evidence- that torturing people gets you reliable information fast?

Even if such evidence existed for investigating petty theft or something, we also have to question whether it would apply when some or all of the people the moral cripples on this board want to torture are religious fanatics who have proven their willingness to die for their cause. They believe in a pleasant afterlife, remember.

Point two. Has this guy been convicted of anything? Has the evidence that he is guilty of anything, or that he knows anything, been presented? If not, condoning torture for this guy means condoning torture for absolutely anyone your government feels like fingering as a terrorist in possession of useful information.

Point three. Civilised nations don't torture people. In civilised nations if you torture someone you go to jail for as long as the law possibly allows, preferably for life.

Megalodon

4th March 2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Troll

maybe not in my country. But yet, Ironically, in protecting my country that has happened.

I'm sorry for you :(

so don't presume you can lecture me on liberties lost.

I don't lecture anything... I'm discussing the subject with you.. there is a difference

Victor Danilchenko

4th March 2003, 06:08 AM

billydkid

I really can not see how you can morally defend not torturing someone if it means saving a whole bunch of other people.Very easily. You have to consider what long-term social effect will be engendered by the society deciding to torture its enemies. Will it, for example, be a step towards an eventual dictatorial regime, which will destroy far more people than torture could preserve?

Think long-term consequences on social attitudes.

4th March 2003, 06:44 AM

I am not so easy to surprise, but this thread managed to do that. I wouldn't have believed that so many posters think that torturing the "bad guys" is a good idea. Just remember that in the end people who are in charge get to define who is a "bad guy".

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 06:49 AM

Meglodon...et al....

I have only seen one or two answers that speak to my "ticking bomb terrorist" scenario. Bjorn has decided his morality is so important that 3,000 hypothetical lives must be sacrificed on it's altar. Others here are even unwilling to entertain the question! Is it, or is it not more moral to non-lethally torture one man in order to save 3,000 or more lives? This hypothetical takes into accout that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has information which can avert this coming tragedy.

What I think is that most of you are unwilling to make a choice at all. True, it's a tragic choice...a dilemma with no happy ending.

Let's play it out this way: You are the engineer on a train. It has lost it's brakes. There is no way to stop or slow down...there is no way to leave the tracks. Up ahead there is a bus load of schoolchildren stuck on the tracks. You have just enough time to actuate a switch that will move your train onto a siding....but on the siding there is a drunk lying asleep on the tracks.

(This hypothetical is from Dershowitz's book...)

Which of these tragic choices do you make? Some of you, I suspect, will be paralysed by your own morality...yet if you allow paralysis it becomes a conscious choice to hit the bus.

-zilla

Graham

4th March 2003, 07:01 AM

Graham

4th March 2003, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
Meglodon...et al....

I have only seen one or two answers that speak to my "ticking bomb terrorist" scenario. Bjorn has decided his morality is so important that 3,000 hypothetical lives must be sacrificed on it's altar. Others here are even unwilling to entertain the question! Is it, or is it not more moral to non-lethally torture one man in order to save 3,000 or more lives? This hypothetical takes into accout that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has information which can avert this coming tragedy.

What I think is that most of you are unwilling to make a choice at all. True, it's a tragic choice...a dilemma with no happy ending.

Let's play it out this way: You are the engineer on a train. It has lost it's brakes. There is no way to stop or slow down...there is no way to leave the tracks. Up ahead there is a bus load of schoolchildren stuck on the tracks. You have just enough time to actuate a switch that will move your train onto a siding....but on the siding there is a drunk lying asleep on the tracks.

(This hypothetical is from Dershowitz's book...)

Which of these tragic choices do you make? Some of you, I suspect, will be paralysed by your own morality...yet if you allow paralysis it becomes a conscious choice to hit the bus.

-zilla

I think the concern of most of the "anti-torture" posters are more concerned with the long-term implications of a "torture for information policy" than with a single hypothetical situation.

The situation with the train is a no-brainer but yes, you're probably right: faced with that kind of a decision many people probably would just freeze (including a number of the blow-hard, would-be torturers posting here, I would say).

The situation with the terror suspect is more complex, despite your best efforts to make it seem simple. Who has this person in custody? Who knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty? Who is responsible for making sure that that person actually knows beyond a shadow of a doubt and hasn't just convinced himself that he knows (as policemen have occasionally been known to do and be wrong)? Wha tif he won't talk, how far is he to be tortured - you say non-leathal torture but would you torture until he is, say crippled, or blind or insane?

What if he actually doesn't know anything - are you going to pick his fingernails up off the floor, take the needles out of his eyelid and say "sorry pal, wrong guy"?

Graham

4th March 2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Graham

I second that. There is a really worrying trend in posts on the P&CE board recently.

Graham,

This is the best evidence I've seen yet that the United States, most of it anyway, is undergoing some kind of mass psychosis. I'm dead serious here. People whom I'm sure wouldn't hurt a fly are making the most outrageous statements imaginable.

I never intellectually understood how a whole nation, Germany in particular, could go whacko the way it did. Now I'm afraid I understand perfectly. The United States has lost its mind.

Rik and others refuse to discuss the long-term effects, turning the discussion back around to the present every time when asked to contemplate the possible (almost certain) abuses. They just don't care. Other chickenhawks simply dismiss the argument that our own people will be tortured with an incredibly cavalier "Torture happens already." Yeah, right, big talkers, let's see what someone thinks who has to go out and back up your tough talk. Do you have sons or daughters of military age? I thought not.

It makes me think of a drunk, angry guy who is determined to do something stupid, though all his friends are trying to talk sense into him.

My question is, what can we other Americans do about this? You can see that Rik and others like him are on a runaway train, but how to get the point home to them?

I am dreadfully afraid all our lessons are going to have to be learned the very, very hard way.

Graham

4th March 2003, 07:23 AM

I must admit I don't understand it myself. I'm not attacking anyone here, by the way, I just want to know - what's going on in your minds, people?

Is it correct, what Sundog says - that you don't care about the long-term consequences?

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 07:49 AM

As I predicted you guys are squirming to get off the horns of the dilemma. You are refusing to take a tragic decision, when a courageous decision is just what is needed in order to lessen the tragedy. In order for your morals to emerge intact loads of people must die. That IMHO is not moral...it is cowardly.

Neither of you are addressing the almost certain fact that torture is being done in the name and defense of your country. Are you not courageous enough to face the fact that sometimes tragic decisions must be taken??

My hypothetical was very rigid. The suspect is known beyond any shadow of any doubt to have knowledge that will save over 3,000 individuals. You ask questions about how they know... but this is my hypothetical....they know. This is enough for this example.

I'll make it real simple for you: Do you allow deaths of thousands...or hell, even tens...by refusing to torture even the ticking bomb terrorist in a non-lethal manner?

Yes or no.

-zilla

4th March 2003, 07:53 AM

Sorry Mr. O'Reilly, I don't accept the tactic of letting you define the entire universe of discourse and then define the discussion parameters all the way down to a yes-or-no answer to a bogus question. You can flip my microphone off if you don't like my answers.

I will answer this one, though.

Is it right to stand up for American values, even when the possibility exists that doing so will cause many deaths?

An unequivocal, loud, and very firm YES. Brave men have aswered this question in this way for 200 years.

Now how about addressing OUR points, that you are being incredibly short-sighted?

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Graham
I must admit I don't understand it myself. I'm not attacking anyone here, by the way, I just want to know - what's going on in your minds, people?

Is it correct, what Sundog says - that you don't care about the long-term consequences?

Immediate consequences are the death of thousands. Long term consequences are unknown...or can be vaguely guessed at.

Answer the question. The clock is ticking. The hypothetical scenario is reality. Live in the now. The future consequences are out there, but are they important enough in your mind??

-zilla

Q-Source

4th March 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Immediate consequences are the death of thousands. Long term consequences are unknown...or can be vaguely guessed at.

Answer the question. The clock is ticking. The hypothetical scenario is reality. Live in the now. The future consequences are out there, but are they important enough in your mind??

-zilla

Could you please clear your mailbox?

4th March 2003, 08:00 AM

Personally I don't think we should throw around words like "cowardly", but since it's out there, in my opinion what is cowardly is to give up everything our forefathers fought for because you're scared silly of a terrorist attack.

I say, bring it on, bast*rds. I'm not so afraid of you that I'm willing to redefine America.

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by sundog
Sorry Mr. O'Reilly, I don't accept the tactic of letting you define the entire universe of discourse and then define the discussion parameters all the way down to a yes-or-no answer to a bogus question. You can flip my microphone off if you don't like my answers.

I will answer this one, though.

Is it right to stand up for American values, even when the possibility exists that doing so will cause many deaths?

An unequivocal, loud, and very firm YES. Brave men have aswered this question in this way for 200 years.

Now how about addressing OUR points, that you are being incredibly short-sighted?

Finally...a man with the courage of his convictions!

Sundog would rather thousands die than compromise his lofty morals! Lets all hope you don't hold a job in homeland security!
Good for you. But remember...perhaps someone else who holds your opinion will end up costing you or your loved ones their lives. You see,...it's entirely possible you will be sitting next to the ticking bomb someday. Food for thought.

-zilla

4th March 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Finally...a man with the courage of his convictions!

Sundog would rather thousands die than compromise his lofty morals! Lets all hope you don't hold a job in homeland security!
Good for you. But remember...perhaps someone else who holds your opinion will end up costing you or your loved ones their lives. You see,...it's entirely possible you will be sitting next to the ticking bomb someday. Food for thought.

-zilla

Brave Americans have taken this risk many, many times over for the "beliefs" you think so little of. I'm not afraid.

4th March 2003, 08:05 AM

I just read the first set of replies in this thread.

I will be collecting those replies and emailing them to most of the people I know, along with a link so that people can come and see for themselves that I have not had to be particularly selective in my quoting. The email will be entitled "American public opinion on the use of torture."

:(

4th March 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
is being done in the name and defense of your country.[/b]
Somehow I don't think that this is the case for me.

My hypothetical was very rigid. The suspect is known beyond any shadow of any doubt to have knowledge that will save over 3,000 individuals. You ask questions about how they know... but this is my hypothetical....they know. This is enough for this example.
Sure it is easy to construct a hypothetical example where torture is the least evil, like in the above one. However, I believe that in most real-life cases torture does much more harm than good.

Several weeks ago I read about an interesting real-life case that happened in the 17th century Finland. One thief was caught, and then tortured to give the names of his accomplishes (the officials were breaking law there, torture had already been forbidden). He broke and named another man, who was then captured and tortured until he confessed. Well, the problem was that the original thief had really acted alone, but the torturers didn't believe that. The thief later retracted the accusation, but the innocent man was still convicted to pay a large fine (roughly half of the price of a farmhouse, if I remember correctly). He completely lost his status in the society, started drinking heavily, and before the end of the year committed a suicide. Nothing happened to the torturers.

If you allow torture, things like this will happen.

Graham

4th March 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
As I predicted you guys are squirming to get off the horns of the dilemma. You are refusing to take a tragic decision, when a courageous decision is just what is needed in order to lessen the tragedy. In order for your morals to emerge intact loads of people must die. That IMHO is not moral...it is cowardly.

Neither of you are addressing the almost certain fact that torture is being done in the name and defense of your country. Are you not courageous enough to face the fact that sometimes tragic decisions must be taken??

My hypothetical was very rigid. The suspect is known beyond any shadow of any doubt to have knowledge that will save over 3,000 individuals. You ask questions about how they know... but this is my hypothetical....they know. This is enough for this example.

I'll make it real simple for you: Do you allow deaths of thousands...or hell, even tens...by refusing to torture even the ticking bomb terrorist in a non-lethal manner?

Yes or no.

-zilla

Simple: no.

If I'm the man on the ground and I know 100%, for a fact that this person knows the information I need then I will, personally, even if I have to tear teeny, weeny little strips off him with my bare hands and pour vinegar on the wounds until he tells me. I'll listen to his screams and tighten the screws or whatever needs doing, don't doubt that for a second. If I feel it's justified, I'll do it.

If I'm the person in charge, who has to decide on situations and someone comes to me and says - should we torture this person, I say: show me the evidence and I'll decide. If I'm persuaded that this person knows the information in question and that getting that information will prevent the tradgedy then I'll order the torture, regardless of standing orders to the contrary, but It'd have to be damn convincing evidence.

If I'm the lawmaker who has to decide policy and they come to me and say - in hypothetical situations such as x, should we torture people to get information? I'm going to say no, hell no, even.

Sometimes tragic decisions have to be taken. I've taken a few pretty harsh ones in my time - I'm not proud of what I did on those occassions but in my opinion, at the time, it had to be done. I wouldn't make a policy of encouraging those things in others though because the consequences of such a policy would be disastrous.

Graham

4th March 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by FFed

ya, just forget it happened. And while your at it, forget about sept 11.

Make sure you remind me when it happens. After all, it will all be my fault.

Count on it.

You have no trouble being glib about it, but yes indeed, it WOULD be your fault.

4th March 2003, 08:07 AM

4th March 2003, 08:08 AM

Graham

Sometimes tragic decisions have to be taken

Yeah....sometimes they do....

:(

Q-Source

4th March 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I just read the first set of replies in this thread.

I will be collecting those replies and emailing them to most of the people I know, along with a link so that people can come and see for themselves that I have not had to be particularly selective in my quoting. The email will be entitled "American public opinion on the use of torture."

Ohh, come on Geoff.

Don't tell me you are surprised. :rolleyes:

However, we must recognise that not all the USA public opinion is so radical and insane as this one. It happens that this forum has the worst of some extremist right wing people.

Q-S

Flo

4th March 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I just read the first set of replies in this thread.

I will be collecting those replies and emailing them to most of the people I know, along with a link so that people can come and see for themselves that I have not had to be particularly selective in my quoting. The email will be entitled "American public opinion on the use of torture."

:(

Unfair :(

Fist, you have at most the opinion of a handful of people, not of the "American public".

Second, among that handful, some have expressed different opinions.

Third, you'll find exactly the same range of opinions and reactions in any country or nationality you care to give this poll to.

I've heard exactly the same arguments in France, Switzerland, Japan, Western African countries, up to the "we are the good guys, we do it to save lives, for justice, freedom, truth and happiness to prevail" :(

Graham

4th March 2003, 08:16 AM

Immediate consequences are the death of thousands. Long term consequences are unknown...or can be vaguely guessed at.

Answer the question. The clock is ticking. The hypothetical scenario is reality. Live in the now. The future consequences are out there, but are they important enough in your mind??

-zilla

Rikzilla,

Sorry, I type slowly - I hope the thousands didn't die while I was composing my post.

I'd just like to point out that, following my torture of the suspect, in the first two scenarios of my last post, I would fully expect myself to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Toture is barbaric and unjustifiable except emotionally and in impossible black-and-white hypotheticals.

Now, Rikzilla. Please address the various points raised in opposition to torture in this thread, for example:

Corplinx: torture is inneffective

Sundog: torture in un-American

Me and several others: torture is a slippery slope

Megaladon and LW: torture has been seen to be abused in the past

That'll do for a start.

Graham

Doubt

4th March 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I just read the first set of replies in this thread.

I will be collecting those replies and emailing them to most of the people I know, along with a link so that people can come and see for themselves that I have not had to be particularly selective in my quoting. The email will be entitled "American public opinion on the use of torture."

:(

Do the math UCE.

Compare the number of people who have commented here to the votes in the poll. I think you are using the comments here as a form of confirmation bias. The numbers tell you more about what people think than the comments. Also make sure you include who said what, not just the comments themselves. You want to believe the US if full of rabid dogs. Make sure you send the poll numbers along with the comments. Include this comment as well.

Doubt.

toddjh

4th March 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
Immediate consequences are the death of thousands. Long term consequences are unknown...or can be vaguely guessed at.

I once heard some kind of quote about learning from history that I think might be relevant here. You don't have to look far in this world to see what happens when you give the authorities carte blanche in their treatment of suspects -- after all, they are, as others have pointed out, the ones who decide who is a suspect.

There's an interesting idea called "due process" that you might want to look into. It's one of the things that made this country truly revolutionary, and if I were you I'd be holding onto it with all my strength. Otherwise, we're just another thug state, only with bigger guns.

Answer the question. The clock is ticking. The hypothetical scenario is reality. Live in the now. The future consequences are out there, but are they important enough in your mind?

Yes. I'm perfectly prepared to face that possibility that I will be one of those to be killed when the ticking bomb goes off. I'd be honored to be among those who risked their lives to fight for the values that this country is supposed to stand for. It's long past time for those who talk incessantly about freedom and personal rights to put their money where their mouth is.

Jeremy

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Please include some of mine for balance. We're not ALL insane.

Ad-hominu is the last refuge of those who are losing an argument.
Please also tell your friends Geoff to notice that fact that we have the courage and the freedom to seriously debate such a thing. This dialog is the most important thing we do. For you to attempt to shame us into silence by the opinions of your PC friends is the height of cowardly hypocrisy.

I am not advocating torture. I am merely stating the fact that sometime it may be actually more moral to take the least evil tragic choice. Also I'm saying that if it is possible that torture may be used....and I believe it is "possible" :rolleyes: .... then there should be open dialog about it. This is an attempt at such dialog.

Let your friends in the UK ponder that. Also, Sundog, if you have something besides an ad-hom to offer please offer it. Your decent into ad hom is much like your emotional posting of the 9/11 victims names...beneath you. BTW, go have another look at those names...as your own moral code dictates that they should be left to die in my hypothetical.

-zilla

specious_reasons

4th March 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

(snip)
My hypothetical was very rigid. The suspect is known beyond any shadow of any doubt to have knowledge that will save over 3,000 individuals. You ask questions about how they know... but this is my hypothetical....they know. This is enough for this example.

I'll make it real simple for you: Do you allow deaths of thousands...or hell, even tens...by refusing to torture even the ticking bomb terrorist in a non-lethal manner?

Yes or no.

-zilla

You're making the assumption that torturing the individual will yield information that will enable you to "defuse the ticking time bomb". I don't hold to that line of thought, so I think your scenario is a false dicotomy.

I would still not yield our government the "right" to torture an individual. I just heard another story on the news today. A man's parent's were brutally killed, the police "knew" he was the killer, so they wore him down over time, until they got to the point where they had him speculating how he would have killed his parents "in a blackout". He then confessed, even though he was innocent of the crime.

edited to add:
This was on NPR this morning.
In this case, some police tactics were legal, like lying to the suspect. But others, like depriving him of sleep, are questionable. I don't know if the questionable tactics they used constitute torture.

4th March 2003, 08:27 AM

Doubt :

Compare the number of people who have commented here to the votes in the poll. I think you are using the comments here as a form of confirmation bias. The numbers tell you more about what people think than the comments.

The people voting aren't all Americans. I don't know what the split is. I rather suspect that most non-Americans voted that torture shouldn't be allowed.

Also make sure you include who said what, not just the comments themselves. You want to believe the US if full of rabid dogs.

Rabid dogs?

No, rabid dogs are just mad.

Looks to me like America is rotting from the inside out. I am all done with being angry at Americans. Now it is Tony Blair who must take the heat, for betraying his country. He is supposed to serve Queen and Country. He has reduced himself to being a spin doctor for a country populated by gun-waving neo-fascist proponents of torture - and these are supposed to be the intellectual 'thinkers' trying to deal with the problem of bible-bashing Christian fundamentalists who are also gun-waving neo-fascist proponents of torture. Justice will come to America. It will also come to Blair.

Troll

4th March 2003, 08:29 AM

Megalodon, I apologize for my part of our little personal insult war. I've never claimed to be one to seek the moral high ground. There always tends to be someone that finds even higher ground and then pissing contests like ours begin.

But I have to ask, would you let people die in order to preserve your self-esteem?

And this is out there for anyone and everyone, although it's probably going to just be an American thing because I don't know what shows are televised where, but has anyone been watching the current season of 24? If so is there any problems you have with acts that have been committed in the show?

Doubt

4th March 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Doubt :

The people voting aren't all Americans. I don't know what the split is. I rather suspect that most non-Americans voted that torture shouldn't be allowed.

Rabid dogs?

No, rabid dogs are just mad.

Looks to me like America is rotting from the inside out. I am all done with being angry at Americans. Now it is Tony Blair who must take the heat, for betraying his country. He is supposed to serve Queen and Country. He has reduced himself to being a spin doctor for a country populated by gun-waving neo-fascist proponents of torture - and these are supposed to be the intellectual 'thinkers' trying to deal with the problem of bible-bashing Christian fundamentalists who are also gun-waving neo-fascist proponents of torture. Justice will come to America. It will also come to Blair.

I counted 32 posters, 18 from the US.

The poll at this writing had 45 votes. 31 opposed to torture.

The best estimate from that data is that most Americans are against torture. Your argument is weak.

Now UCE, what do you think such a poll would look like if we had asked the British about torturing IRA members 15 years ago?

Troll

4th March 2003, 08:30 AM

4th March 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Ad-hominu is the last refuge of those who are losing an argument.
-zilla

LOL, I haven't lost, I've won hands down. I've shown you why your argument is unAmerican and cowardly, and you've shown that you're so deathly afraid of the evil terrorists that you're willing to give up literally every important American value to stop them.

I think your arguments, and those of others that agree with you, ARE insane. That's not an ad-hom, that is my honest opinion.

You haven't honestly addressed a single point that anyone's raised.

Shame on you for "decent" into personal abuse.

4th March 2003, 08:34 AM

Rik :

This dialog is the most important thing we do. For you to attempt to shame us into silence by the opinions of your PC friends is the height of cowardly hypocrisy.

WHAT?! :eek:

You think I am PC?

I am about the least PC person I know, and I don't know anyone who is PC. I am hypocritical coward for passing on quotes of real people about a real issue?

I am not advocating torture.

Weren't you? Plenty of others were.

I am merely stating the fact that sometime it may be actually more moral to take the least evil tragic choice.

Some people would say that about 9/11. All depends who you happen to think is right and who is wrong. That is the thing that you and all these people seem to have missed. When the Geneva convention was signed it was understood that during a war both sides think they are correct. You can't just bend the rules when it suits you, at least if you do then don't complain when the American prisoners are tortured in return. It is exactly the same problem as the escalation debate. You seem to believe that somehow it is OK for the US to live by a different set of rules to everyone else, just because you are the US.

Troll

4th March 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Rik :

WHAT?! :eek:

You think I am PC?

I am about the least PC person I know, and I don't know anyone who is PC. I am hypocritical coward for passing on quotes of real people about a real issue?

Weren't you? Plenty of others were.

Some people would say that about 9/11. All depends who you happen to think is right and who is wrong. That is the thing that you and all these people seem to have missed. When the Geneva convention was signed it was understood that during a war both sides think they are correct. You can't just bend the rules when it suits you, at least if you do then don't complain when the American prisoners are tortured in return. It is exactly the same problem as the escalation debate. You seem to believe that somehow it is OK for the US to live by a different set of rules to everyone else, just because you are the US.

American soldiers have been tortured. I'm not seeing anyone complaining about it here.

But this is not about the torture of POWs this is how far you're willing to go in order to save lives.

Bobby has a nuke planted in London. It's set to go off today sometime. He doesn't want to tell you were it is. Do you hope to evacuate the city in time? do you take Bobby with you when you do? Or do you put a little hurting on Bobby to get him to talk?

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by toddjh

I once heard some kind of quote about learning from history that I think might be relevant here. You don't have to look far in this world to see what happens when you give the authorities carte blanche in their treatment of suspects -- after all, they are, as others have pointed out, the ones who decide who is a suspect.

There's an interesting idea called "due process" that you might want to look into. It's one of the things that made this country truly revolutionary, and if I were you I'd be holding onto it with all my strength. Otherwise, we're just another thug state, only with bigger guns.

Yes. I'm perfectly prepared to face that possibility that I will be one of those to be killed when the ticking bomb goes off. I'd be honored to be among those who risked their lives to fight for the values that this country is supposed to stand for. It's long past time for those who talk incessantly about freedom and personal rights to put their money where their mouth is.

Jeremy

Your views are commendable. However there are others who are not likely to be so apt to voluntarily sacrifice themselves or their loved ones in this manner. The object of this little debate/exercise is not to give "carte blanche" but to recognise that this situation is likely under the current WOT. Therefore, if we talk about it...we can decide whether or not to do it...and if we do it we can debate and set limits to it. That, guys, is the American way.

We have our little think-tank here.... is this subject so heinous and vile that it is off limits to reasonable debate?? Isn't this what free speech is all about gang??

-zilla

4th March 2003, 08:42 AM

Troll :

But you don't despise America, right?

"America" is a chunk of rock. No, I don't despise a chunk of rock.

"The American People" are a very diverse group, with a diverse set of beliefs and opinions. No, I don't despise "The American People."

However, there are certain widely held beliefs in America which I find totally unacceptable and which I feel are the most dangerous and destructive force on this planet. I think that the people who hold these beliefs will be the undoing of America. I think we are in the early stages of watching the wheels come off the American Dream.

Three wheels on my wagon.......

4th March 2003, 08:47 AM

Bobby has a nuke planted in London. It's set to go off today sometime. He doesn't want to tell you were it is. Do you hope to evacuate the city in time? do you take Bobby with you when you do? Or do you put a little hurting on Bobby to get him to talk?

How about you make sure your foreign policy is not so hopelessly f**ked up that someone wants to put a nuke in your city in the first place?

Graham

4th March 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Troll

American soldiers have been tortured. I'm not seeing anyone complaining about it here.

But this is not about the torture of POWs this is how far you're willing to go in order to save lives.

Bobby has a nuke planted in London. It's set to go off today sometime. He doesn't want to tell you were it is. Do you hope to evacuate the city in time? do you take Bobby with you when you do? Or do you put a little hurting on Bobby to get him to talk?

Again I realise youre not actually talking ot me and apologise for butting in but this is essentially the same as Rikzilla's scenario.

I answered that as best I could, now will you (or someone "onyour side" please answer the issues other people have raised, to whit:

Corplinx: torture is inneffective

Sundog: torture in un-American

Me and several others: torture is a slippery slope

Megaladon and LW: torture has been seen to be abused in the past

And also, will you please answer the questions relating to what criteria you would use to judge when torture is justified (i.e. only in terrorism cases or in criminal cases too. Only when it will 100% definitely prevent casualties or when it might prevent casulties. When it's a matter of 1 casualty, 100 casualties, 1000 casualties?)

Thanks,

Graham

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by sundog

LOL, I haven't lost, I've won hands down. I've shown you why your argument is unAmerican and cowardly, and you've shown that you're so deathly afraid of the evil terrorists that you're willing to give up literally every important American value to stop them.

I think your arguments, and those of others that agree with you, ARE insane. That's not an ad-hom, that is my honest opinion.

You haven't honestly addressed a single point that anyone's raised.

Shame on you for "decent" into personal abuse.

You are emotional. You have decended into ad-hominum...now you are indulging yourself in the strawman fallacy.

Start dispassionately debating the issues and facts. Otherwise you are not debating...you are merely ranting.

-zilla

4th March 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

We have our little think-tank here.... is this subject so heinous and vile that it is off limits to reasonable debate?? Isn't this what free speech is all about gang??

-zilla

Yes. That's what we're trying to bring home to you. Civilized people don't have this discussion... period.

Haven't any of you torturers ever heard of sodium pentothal or are you too eager to start shoving bamboo under Arab fingernails?

toddjh

4th March 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
We have our little think-tank here.... is this subject so heinous and vile that it is off limits to reasonable debate?? Isn't this what free speech is all about gang??

Very well -- you want reasonable debate, you start. Please address the concerns that have been raised multiple times now:

1. Torture is an ineffective means of obtaining information.

2. Torture has a very high potential for abuse, with terrible consequences if it is.

3. Torture by the U.S. would encourage others, both allies and enemies, to do the same.

4. Torture is contrary to the established values that America claims to hold dear. Can you really claim to be defending a country by engaging in actions that defeat the principles on which the country is founded?

5. Torture can only be justified by declaring that the ends justify the means.

6. The correlation between nations which routinely engage in torture and those that become totalitarian states is very high.

Others have called for you to address these points many times now, but I still haven't seen you speak to any of them. In the interests of rational discussion, please begin now.

Jeremy

4th March 2003, 08:50 AM

Troll

4th March 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

How about you make sure your foreign policy is not so hopelessly ********** up that someone wants to put a nuke in your city in the first place?

You wanna do that while the nuke is in play? Cutting it kinda close on the time constraints, aren't ya? Okay so you start negotiating with Bobby's people. You have maybe all of 12 hours to come to an agreement and get someone else in the know to tell you where the nuke is. Think you can resolve someone's despise for you in that amount of time?

Graham

4th March 2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

You are emotional. You have decended into ad-hominum...now you are indulging yourself in the strawman fallacy.

Start dispassionately debating the issues and facts. Otherwise you are not debating...you are merely ranting.

-zilla

Why don't you address the issues?

Corplinx: torture is inneffective

Sundog: torture in un-American

Me and several others: torture is a slippery slope

Megaladon and LW: torture has been seen to be abused in the past

And also, will you please answer the questions relating to what criteria you would use to judge when torture is justified (i.e. only in terrorism cases or in criminal cases too. Only when it will 100% definitely prevent casualties or when it might prevent casulties. When it's a matter of 1 casualty, 100 casualties, 1000 casualties?)

Debate these facts, please. Thanks,

Graham

Edited to add that I notice toddjh has repeated a similar request since I last posted, sorry for clogging the debate, I'll refrain from posting anything further to give you a chance to respond

4th March 2003, 08:55 AM

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Weren't you? Plenty of others were.

Perhaps they were...but go back and read what I actually have said. I said that in some few restricted examples a choice to torture may be the least evil choice when faced with a dilemma of the kind I put forth in my hypothetical. What is your answer to the hypothetical? And lets not say 3,000 strangers..how 'bout we say your entire circle of family and friends for instance. So whaddaya say? Be honest.

Some people would say that about 9/11. All depends who you happen to think is right and who is wrong. That is the thing that you and all these people seem to have missed. When the Geneva convention was signed it was understood that during a war both sides think they are correct. You can't just bend the rules when it suits you, at least if you do then don't complain when the American prisoners are tortured in return. It is exactly the same problem as the escalation debate. You seem to believe that somehow it is OK for the US to live by a different set of rules to everyone else, just because you are the US.

You mean like Daniel Pearl?? A man who was BEHEADED on camera?? Do you suppose for an instant that these kinds of animals have any regard for Geneva?? At least our soldiers know that they are combatants. What did Daniel Pearl know? How did Geneva protect Mr. Pearl?

Torture is a reality Geoff...am I to be pilloried for being willing to admit this fact?

-zilla

4th March 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Torture is a reality Geoff...am I to be pilloried for being willing to admit this fact?

-zilla

No. But you are to be pilloried for wanting to make it a commonplace event.

Answer the questions you're ignoring, please.

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Sorry, we're not going to let you off the hook. Answer the questions. You're not fooling anyone by pretending I'm being irrational.

State your questions and I will do my best to honestly answer them.

4th March 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

State your questions and I will do my best to honestly answer them.

What are you doing, simply ignoring most of the posts here? Scroll up.

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by sundog

No. But you are to be pilloried for wanting to make it a commonplace event.

Strawman...:rolleyes: Debate what I said....not what you think I said.

Doubt

4th March 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Troll

You wanna do that while the nuke is in play? Cutting it kinda close on the time constraints, aren't ya? Okay so you start negotiating with Bobby's people. You have maybe all of 12 hours to come to an agreement and get someone else in the know to tell you where the nuke is. Think you can resolve someone's despise for you in that amount of time?

UCE does not want to answer your question. But I will.

You picked an example where the human perception of time comes into play. Bobby knows he only has to hold out for 12 hours. Torture probably won't get the answer out of him. He will tell you something, but he only has to hold out on the truth for a defined period of time. Sure you can mess with his mind about how much time has passed, but he still knows that he does not have to hold out forever. You lose by torturing him.

More complex head games required. Torture will not get you what you want in this example.

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by sundog

What are you doing, simply ignoring most of the posts here? Scroll up.

No. You said answer the questions...then question me or shut up...I'm not here to do your work for you.

Troll

4th March 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Graham

Again I realise youre not actually talking ot me and apologise for butting in but this is essentially the same as Rikzilla's scenario.

I answered that as best I could, now will you (or someone "onyour side" please answer the issues other people have raised, to whit:

Corplinx: torture is inneffective

Sundog: torture in un-American

Me and several others: torture is a slippery slope

Megaladon and LW: torture has been seen to be abused in the past

And also, will you please answer the questions relating to what criteria you would use to judge when torture is justified (i.e. only in terrorism cases or in criminal cases too. Only when it will 100% definitely prevent casualties or when it might prevent casulties. When it's a matter of 1 casualty, 100 casualties, 1000 casualties?)

Thanks,

Graham

Tortue is all those things at times. I will agree.

I for one believe in the use of it, but by very few individuals when it pertains to mass death. In the case of Mcveigh, I would have used it if we had some sort of prior knowledge or insider. It's a rare use, a last ditch time constraint use thing.

In criminal cases, I've not seen any thing that I would personally use torture in. Only thing close has been in movies where the guy says the girl is in a place where she will be dead in 24 hours and he's not telling you where. even then, I'd play along first and try the other options and then go after the guy later after she's been rescued or found dead. But in that case, there's no need for torture.

I'd use it to prevent a nuke, a chemical attack, a biological attack, poisoning of a resevoir or an attack like the WTC or the one McVeigh pulled off.

War's have warriors fight them. Even though many Americans were tortured in Vietnam and other places I still don't find it a necessity to use torture on the average soldier just to get troop info.

does that clarify anything from my perspective of torture and it's uses? If so, then glad I could help. If not, feel free to ask more.

4th March 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Strawman...:rolleyes: Debate what I said....not what you think I said.

Rik.

We are trying to tell you that if this policy goes forward, what you will see next if the war goes forward is the spectacle of Daniel Pearl repeated over and over on the evening news with our sons and daughters. Can't you get that through your head?

Torture WILL become a commonplace event. Our enemies will be sure to make that happen. Get ready for tape after tape of American soldiers being tortured and killed.

And it will all be the fault of those who feel the way you do.

Graham

4th March 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

State your questions and I will do my best to honestly answer them.
Corplinx: torture is inneffective

My version:

Sundog: torture in un-American

Me and several others: torture is a slippery slope

Megaladon and LW: torture has been seen to be abused in the past

And also, will you please answer the questions relating to what criteria you would use to judge when torture is justified (i.e. only in terrorism cases or in criminal cases too. Only when it will 100% definitely prevent casualties or when it might prevent casulties. When it's a matter of 1 casualty, 100 casualties, 1000 casualties?)

Or toddjh's version:

1. Torture is an ineffective means of obtaining information.

2. Torture has a very high potential for abuse, with terrible consequences if it is.

3. Torture by the U.S. would encourage others, both allies and enemies to do the same.

4. Torture is contrary to the established values that America claims to hold dear. Can you really claim to be defending a country by engaging in actions that defeat the principles on which the country is founded?

5. Torture can only be justified by declaring that the ends justify the means.

6. The correlation between nations which routinely engage in torture and those that become totalitarian states is very high.

Take your pick, Rikzilla.

toddjh

4th March 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Graham
Edited to add that I notice toddjh has repeated a similar request since I last posted, sorry for clogging the debate, I'll refrain from posting anything further to give you a chance to respond

I agree we should give him time to respond, but I don't think it's clogging the debate to call him on it when he says he wants reasonable discussion. We should continue to press him on these issues until he responds, and the more people on board the better.

Jeremy

Ladewig

4th March 2003, 09:03 AM

Question for JK. How much strategic information would you give up under torture? If the answer is none, then why do you think these other people will give up strategic information?

Question for all the people advocating torture in the ticking bomb scenario. Why do you think the torture will produce anything other than chaos?

U.S. agent: Where is the ticking bomb in N.Y.C.?

terrorist: Ow, even if you find it, the bomb in Boston will still go off.

U.S.A.: mobilize the National Guard. Evacuate Boston. Where is the N.Y. bomb?

terrorist: Ow, it is in the Lincoln tunnel.

U.S.A. Close the Lincoln tunnel. Send the terrorist response team there immediately. How big is the bomb?

terrorist: Ow, not as big as the one on the George Washington bridge.

etc.

4th March 2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

No. You said answer the questions...then question me or shut up...I'm not here to do your work for you.

What do you think this is, day care? I'm not your mommy.

Troll

4th March 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Yes. That's what we're trying to bring home to you. Civilized people don't have this discussion... period.

Haven't any of you torturers ever heard of sodium pentothal or are you too eager to start shoving bamboo under Arab fingernails?

Actually the use of such drugs and even sleep deprivation are part of what many consider to be torture. Part of what I advocate in rare and extreme cases. I'm just adding that maybe you have an impromptu situation and the drug is not available or time does not allow for sleep deprivation, or perhaps those were tried and failed. I'm talking about going from the least amount necessary first. I don't advocate starting off with a gun a grapefruit and a kneecap.

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Rik.

We are trying to tell you that if this policy goes forward, what you will see next if the war goes forward is the spectacle of Daniel Pearl repeated over and over on the evening news with our sons and daughters. Can't you get that through your head?

Torture WILL become a commonplace event. Our enemies will be sure to make that happen. Get ready for tape after tape of American soldiers being tortured and killed.

And it will all be the fault of those who feel the way you do.

Slippery slope fallacy....appeal to emotion.

You'll have to do better than that.

BTW,...still waiting on your questions.

4th March 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Slippery slope fallacy....appeal to emotion.

You'll have to do better than that.

BTW,...still waiting on your questions.

Cause and effect.

Rik, the day you can point out logical fallacies to me will be a cold day in Iraq, and you know it; so give it up.

Can't you read, or are you just stupid? Scroll up, you've been asked over and over.

4th March 2003, 09:07 AM

Troll :

I am unable to respond to you without making anti-American comments that will be counter-productive. You'll just have to imagine what I would like to say.

Troll

4th March 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Doubt

UCE does not want to answer your question. But I will.

You picked an example where the human perception of time comes into play. Bobby knows he only has to hold out for 12 hours. Torture probably won't get the answer out of him. He will tell you something, but he only has to hold out on the truth for a defined period of time. Sure you can mess with his mind about how much time has passed, but he still knows that he does not have to hold out forever. You lose by torturing him.

More complex head games required. Torture will not get you what you want in this example.

Damn, you really need to see 24 in order to know where I was heading with this. If you guys are nice maybe we'll export the show or whatever they call it.

I'm not going to toss out spoilers for the show. But I agree, with the information I provided for the scenario torture is worthless and more head games need to be used. But head games to some degrees can be torture. Torture doesn't have to be physical torture.

In any case though I think I've made my point clear about not starting out with the electrodes.

Troll

4th March 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Troll :

I am unable to respond to you without making anti-American comments that will be counter-productive. You'll just have to imagine what I would like to say.

Well you may wanna work on those issues of yours with that then. Others seem to be able to respond without the attitude just fine.

See we're talking and discussing. Not arguing or preaching how one or the other will have justice served upon them with a firey vegeneance.

Graham

4th March 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Tortue is all those things at times. I will agree.

I for one believe in the use of it, but by very few individuals when it pertains to mass death. In the case of Mcveigh, I would have used it if we had some sort of prior knowledge or insider. It's a rare use, a last ditch time constraint use thing.

In criminal cases, I've not seen any thing that I would personally use torture in. Only thing close has been in movies where the guy says the girl is in a place where she will be dead in 24 hours and he's not telling you where. even then, I'd play along first and try the other options and then go after the guy later after she's been rescued or found dead. But in that case, there's no need for torture.

I'd use it to prevent a nuke, a chemical attack, a biological attack, poisoning of a resevoir or an attack like the WTC or the one McVeigh pulled off.

War's have warriors fight them. Even though many Americans were tortured in Vietnam and other places I still don't find it a necessity to use torture on the average soldier just to get troop info.

does that clarify anything from my perspective of torture and it's uses? If so, then glad I could help. If not, feel free to ask more.

Well, I'm at least glad that you've bothered to answer :)

What you've said, IMO, is fine in - so far as it goes. I will take you up on your offer,however, and pester you on a few points:

1) Torture should be carried out by "a few individuals" - who would these be and how would they be chosen? Would they be law enforcement officials, judges perhaps or would they be elected officials? How high in the chain of command would they need to be (bearing in mind that the higher up they are the less likely it is that they will be "onthe spot" whenBobby is picked up)

2) How do you address the problem that, in real life, situations are rarely so "cut and dried" as in your hypothetical? How sure would you need to be before you started torturing someone?

3) If the answer to (2) is anything less than 100% - what would you do if you were wrong? How would you compensate the wrongly tortured victim?

4) You say "I still don't find it a necessity to use torture on the average soldier just to get troop info" and that you probably wouldn't use torture in a criminal case. How do you address the slippery slope - once torture is on the books, how will you prevent it being used in more and more cases?

5) Similarly, if torture is to be used prememptively, how will you prevent a gradual erosion of the criteria governing its use?

Sorry you asked for more questions yet? ;)

I look forward to your comments.

Graham

Troll

4th March 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Ladewig
Question for JK. How much strategic information would you give up under torture? If the answer is none, then why do you think these other people will give up strategic information?

Question for all the people advocating torture in the ticking bomb scenario. Why do you think the torture will produce anything other than chaos?

U.S. agent: Where is the ticking bomb in N.Y.C.?

terrorist: Ow, even if you find it, the bomb in Boston will still go off.

U.S.A.: mobilize the National Guard. Evacuate Boston. Where is the N.Y. bomb?

terrorist: Ow, it is in the Lincoln tunnel.

U.S.A. Close the Lincoln tunnel. Send the terrorist response team there immediately. How big is the bomb?

terrorist: Ow, not as big as the one on the George Washington bridge.

etc.

Uh, actually you're ewxample showed how it would work. Expect one bomb and find out there's more? I think that works in favor or and not against the use of tortue. ;)

Graham

4th March 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Uh, actually you're ewxample showed how it would work. Expect one bomb and find out there's more? I think that works in favor or and not against the use of tortue. ;)

Eh, I think the point was that maybe there's one bomb and maybe there's three and maybe it's in th eLincoln Tunnell and maybe it's in Boston but how are you going to know unless you check them all and will you continue to torture the suspect in the meantime?

That said, Rik:

BTW,...still waiting on your questions.

These are the points "we" want addressed:

My version:

Corplinx: torture is inneffective

Sundog: torture in un-American

Me and several others: torture is a slippery slope

Megaladon and LW: torture has been seen to be abused in the past

And also, will you please answer the questions relating to what criteria you would use to judge when torture is justified (i.e. only in terrorism cases or in criminal cases too. Only when it will 100% definitely prevent casualties or when it might prevent casulties. When it's a matter of 1 casualty, 100 casualties, 1000 casualties?)

Or toddjh's version:

1. Torture is an ineffective means of obtaining information.

2. Torture has a very high potential for abuse, with terrible consequences if it is.

3. Torture by the U.S. would encourage others, both allies and enemies to do the same.

4. Torture is contrary to the established values that America claims to hold dear. Can you really claim to be defending a country by engaging in actions that defeat the principles on which the country is founded?

5. Torture can only be justified by declaring that the ends justify the means.

6. The correlation between nations which routinely engage in torture and those that become totalitarian states is very high.

Do you want me to PM them to you? :p

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by Graham
Corplinx: torture is inneffective

My version:

Sundog: torture in un-American

Me and several others: torture is a slippery slope

Megaladon and LW: torture has been seen to be abused in the past

And also, will you please answer the questions relating to what criteria you would use to judge when torture is justified (i.e. only in terrorism cases or in criminal cases too. Only when it will 100% definitely prevent casualties or when it might prevent casulties. When it's a matter of 1 casualty, 100 casualties, 1000 casualties?)

Or toddjh's version:

1. Torture is an ineffective means of obtaining information.

2. Torture has a very high potential for abuse, with terrible consequences if it is.

3. Torture by the U.S. would encourage others, both allies and enemies to do the same.

4. Torture is contrary to the established values that America claims to hold dear. Can you really claim to be defending a country by engaging in actions that defeat the principles on which the country is founded?

5. Torture can only be justified by declaring that the ends justify the means.

6. The correlation between nations which routinely engage in torture and those that become totalitarian states is very high.

Take your pick, Rikzilla.

#1. Okay...in some cases torture would be ineffective. I agree.

#2. Torture could be abused...I agree...and I think it is being abused by 3rd party nations that we are currently sending these terror suspects to in order to keep our hands clean. (just a note, but does anyone think this isn't happening?) Personally, I believe that use of a lawfull "torture warrant" would make this practise far less likely to ever occur. Stay with me here people,....the way to limit torture is to regulate it...not be so squeamish we can't even talk about it!

#3...the codification of torture in law by the leader of the free world is the biggest negative in my eyes. I see no easy way around that one.

#4 Torture is against American values....this is true. But is not hypocrisy also against our values? When we engage in hypocrisy over something so abhorrent as torture is that not worse still?

#5 Yes....it is a recognition that sometimes and in some cases the ends do truly justify the means.

#6 Yes, but those states engage in unregulated and unrestricted activity of this nature. Apples and oranges there my friend. The argument I am putting forward is that well regulated use of torture would foster creation of a mechanism by which torture would become actually less likely than it is now.

-zilla

4th March 2003, 09:22 AM

Thank you.

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Cause and effect.

Rik, the day you can point out logical fallacies to me will be a cold day in Iraq, and you know it; so give it up.

Can't you read, or are you just stupid? Scroll up, you've been asked over and over.

Anyone can point out you logical fallacies Sundog. They were apparent in your posts. It appears you are not as interested in debate as others here are.

-z

ZeeGerman

4th March 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

The object of this little debate/exercise is not to give "carte blanche" but to recognise that this situation is likely under the current WOT. Therefore, if we talk about it...we can decide whether or not to do it...and if we do it we can debate and set limits to it. That, guys, is the American way.

We have our little think-tank here.... is this subject so heinous and vile that it is off limits to reasonable debate?? Isn't this what free speech is all about gang??

-zilla

Very well,
I think that your constructed case with the very strict constraints (ticking bomb, know for certain the guy has the info) is NOT AT ALL likely under the current WOT. Thus, where are the limits of allowing torture in your opinion? Do you think torture should be legal if we are only quite certain the guy has the info or think it is likely or what. And what is non lethal torture anyway? Youkeep putting some guy under pain for hours and he may just die of heart attack. And how long do you torture before you accept that he either doesn't know anything or is just really a tough guy? Decisions decisions...

I don't believe one could find a way to construct a law about possible application of torture that does not lead our values of freedom and justice ad absurdum.

Besides, in your little construction, given I was the investigator, I sure would do anything to get it out of the guy. But that doesn't really matter. Sort of the same as with death penalty.
I oppose it strictly, but in case some guy rape-murdered my daughter and you put him in front of me and hand me a gun, I shoot him straight in the face - and go to jail for it afterwards without complain.

Zee

Troll

4th March 2003, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Graham

Well, I'm at least glad that you've bothered to answer :)

What you've said, IMO, is fine in - so far as it goes. I will take you up on your offer,however, and pester you on a few points:

1) Torture should be carried out by "a few individuals" - who would these be and how would they be chosen? Would they be law enforcement officials, judges perhaps or would they be elected officials? How high in the chain of command would they need to be (bearing in mind that the higher up they are the less likely it is that they will be "onthe spot" whenBobby is picked up)

2) How do you address the problem that, in real life, situations are rarely so "cut and dried" as in your hypothetical? How sure would you need to be before you started torturing someone?

3) If the answer to (2) is anything less than 100% - what would you do if you were wrong? How would you compensate the wrongly tortured victim?

4) You say "I still don't find it a necessity to use torture on the average soldier just to get troop info" and that you probably wouldn't use torture in a criminal case. How do you address the slippery slope - once torture is on the books, how will you prevent it being used in more and more cases?

5) Similarly, if torture is to be used prememptively, how will you prevent a gradual erosion of the criteria governing its use?

Sorry you asked for more questions yet? ;)

I look forward to your comments.

Graham

I'm gonna skip the html here as I'm still a bit tired.

1) Secret service or CIA Very few people in each trained and authorized in it's use. Secret Service used for domestic threats CIA for international threats. They have many branches acrossed the nation and access to jets and helicopters so time is a little more free

2) Well you'd have to have some evidence that led us to begin the search forthe guy to begin with . This evidence may or may not be entirely truthful So I would have to say that the threat has to be quite large. Meaning if you have evidence of a bank robbery there's no need to torture to get info from the guy if he's not talking. If you have evidence of a nuke or a huge bomb? Then go through the gradual use process of it.

3)Kill the guy to shut him up. Just kidding. Same as with anyone that has been wrongfully imprisoned, and if he's been physically damaged then the same as with anyone that has also had that occur by law enforcement.

4) Well it's not really all that slippery if it's authorized for specific individuals . Almost like a licensing of sorts. I mean if we authorize assinations of political figures we're not really letting Joe Q Public have the authority to do so. so anyone not authorized willbe punished severely. And I want to add that anyone that is authorized should be held very accountable and observed.

5) I sorta answered that in my last comment. The people authorized go into the room with the suspect. But observers watch through CCTV. They file reports and debrief the authorized person afterwards. Sorta like an internal affairs organization.

Doubt

4th March 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Damn, you really need to see 24 in order to know where I was heading with this. If you guys are nice maybe we'll export the show or whatever they call it.

I'm not going to toss out spoilers for the show. But I agree, with the information I provided for the scenario torture is worthless and more head games need to be used. But head games to some degrees can be torture. Torture doesn't have to be physical torture.

In any case though I think I've made my point clear about not starting out with the electrodes.

LOL!

Ah, did you notice where I am from? Not European. I'm from the suburbs of Detroit!

I have seen 24 and I have traveled quite a bit. 24 is not real. People who are likely to be captured are often trained in how to resist. When ordinary US soldiers are taught about the code of conduct, they are told that they probably will talk if tortured. But most information is time sensitive. You hold out as long as you can. Then you do what you can not to offer information. If that your information is time sensitive, then you know, you don't have to hold out forever. That helps people resist.

Better to take the person away from the problem, Isolate them and mess with their perception of time. Make them think it already happened. Make them think that the circumstances have changed. Is this torture? Depends on whose definition you use. I would say that to deliberately cause physical pain is off limits. Fooling people should not be necessarily be considered torture. It depends on the amount of harm done. I don't know where the threshold is.

4th March 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Anyone can point out you logical fallacies Sundog. They were apparent in your posts. It appears you are not as interested in debate as others here are.

-z

OK Rik, I gave you a chance. One day you will learn.

Please, without abusing the "slippery slope" argument, tell me what would prevent the scenario I talked about? If Americans commonly start torturing people to get information out of them, how can you possibly say that our enemies won't use it against us and rub it in our faces? They know how Americans will react to that.

It's not a slippery slope at all - it's simple cause and effect. Logical arguments don't work that way, you can't run to base and shout "Slippery slope" as if it's a magic phrase; you have to defend your arguments.

The REAL reason you are waffling is made clear here:

#3...the codification of torture in law by the leader of the free world is the biggest negative in my eyes. I see no easy way around that one.

In other words you know I'm right. That's why you won't craft a real response.

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

Very well,
I think that your constructed case with the very strict constraints (ticking bomb, know for certain the guy has the info) is NOT AT ALL likely under the current WOT. Thus, where are the limits of allowing torture in your opinion?

In my example if it were not known for sure that the guy has the info then the torture warrant would be denied.

Simple as that. Yours is an example of my system working. A possible torture of a prisoner averted. IMHO a law officer would be loathe to break the law and resort to torture if there are legal channels to go thru...once such a legal request was denied it would be far less likely our friendly terror suspect would be tortured at all.

-zilla

Jedi Knight

4th March 2003, 09:46 AM

Let's say a nuclear weapon is inside a US city and you capture the guy who knows where it is and there is 2 hours before it detonates.

Do you read the guy his "rights", or do you bust out the blow-torch and a pair of pliers?

JK

Troll

4th March 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Doubt

LOL!

Ah, did you notice where I am from? Not European. I'm from the suburbs of Detroit!

I have seen 24 and I have traveled quite a bit. 24 is not real. People who are likely to be captured are often trained in how to resist. When ordinary US soldiers are taught about the code of conduct, they are told that they probably will talk if tortured. But most information is time sensitive. You hold out as long as you can. Then you do what you can not to offer information. If that your information is time sensitive, then you know, you don't have to hold out forever. That helps people resist.

Better to take the person away from the problem, Isolate them and mess with their perception of time. Make them think it already happened. Make them think that the circumstances have changed. Is this torture? Depends on whose definition you use. I would say that to deliberately cause physical pain is off limits. Fooling people should not be necessarily be considered torture. It depends on the amount of harm done. I don't know where the threshold is.

I saw that castle and Westland and thought UK. Sorry about that :D

And I know 24 isn't real. I was wanting to use the scenario of how they tortured the guy by messing with his mind about his family. I call that torture and it's a torture that didn't harm anyone physically.

I'm also fully aware of the military training and the advancement of said training in S.E.R.E training. But everyone has a breaking point. In time sensitive situations I feel things sometimes may need to be done to speed up the breaking point.

This is not to say that there are never any regrets to having to do something like this.

Doctor X

4th March 2003, 09:50 AM

After reading this I almost miss chasing my quarry around the Religion and Philosophy forum.

One problem we have is the difference with personal and individual policy and a collective policy. Many analogies involve a personal case:

You see the evil Michael Jackson fan--I know, redundant, but bear with me--holding a knife against the throat of your wife, whom, yes, you actually care about.

Question: do you beat him up to find out where he hid the remote?

So, a person, an individual, may stoop to become the monster when he knows the target is not only guilty of something unspeakable, but will commit further evil 'n all.

The problem is then making a rational policy.

Fine, this Al-Quaeda guy is a scum bag, fine, apparently he even boasted about his involvement in various terrorism cases. Indeed, rumors have it that he has contacted Johnnie Cochran which a recent Supreme Court decision held constitutes admissable evidence for guilt.

So, in this case it can seem "justified." Add to the fact that this individual has no qualms committing such on others.

Right.

Good.

When does it stop?

Quite a few posters have noted the problem with "I-know-he-is-guilty" and "I-know-he-has-information." A brief review of the festivities in Salem and most of the less-pleasant witch trials should enlighten one on the reliability of torture and its abuse.

Indeed, is not one of the "nasty things" Sadaam does is torture?

Ethics:

One cannot forget the ethics. I am afraid it does remove one from a moral ground when one engages in the activities of the monsters. Many "bad means" have been "justified" by "bad ends."

Did the forced internment of American citizens in WWII prevent spying?

Practicality:

Now, a practical problem--this debate seems a bit pointless if it does not work.

A bit of argumentum ad ignorantium in that I have no way to verify this--take it with the appropriate pound of salt. According to a "talking head" who claimed Special Forces expertise in interrogation--and fighting interrogation--physical torture--pinchers, blow torches, Neil Diamond 8-tracks--does not yield reliable information and--another pound of salt--the US refuses to allow it on anyone in their jurisdiction. Thus, according to him, you cannot transport a prisoner to the Castle of Vlad the Impailer--Daily tours available!--just to get him to tell you where he hid the car keys.

My point [ZZzzzzzzzzz.--Ed.] is that, according to an "expert"--if you believe it--physical torture may simply not be effective.

Another point he raised was that "inmates like to talk." He did allow sleep deprivation, dishonoring--allowing women to conduct examinations which would piss-off a devout Moslem--and frank deception.

Some might consider this torture. This begins to get a bit like "it depends on what 'is' is." One man's torture is another's round of golf.

I think the poll tries to separate that. I think most see physical as causing pain and damage as opposed to stress. However, stress may cause permanent damage.

Right, I am afraid I consider myself wanting my nation to adhere to the principles it exposes. If put into a "24" situation, would I "over-step the line?" That would depend primarily on whether or not it would help my renewal for another season. Other than that, I do not know. I may, and be judged accordingly.

When one makes "overstepping the line" a part of a national policy or governmental policy, one legitimizes evil.

And, I thought, we were all in the business of combatting evil.

--J.D.

Humor Interlude:

The best torture scene is in the James Cagney film, One, Two, Three!. Here, an East German--remember them?--has been "framed" and arrested by the Ruskies and East Germans. You see the obviously sleep-deprived prisoner and the obviously angry and inpatient interrogator. He kicks over the table, but this is only an act of frustrion.

He snaps his fingers.

Underlings, with trembling, insert ear plugs. Someone brings a "Disney-Micky Mouse" type 45 rpm record player. Upon it they place a warped record.

Soon, emenate the sounds of "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini!"

The prisoner screams!! He confesses to everything.

4th March 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Let's say a nuclear weapon is inside a US city and you capture the guy who knows where it is and there is 2 hours before it detonates.

Do you read the guy his "rights", or do you bust out the blow-torch and a pair of pliers?

JK

I'd bust out the sodium pentothal. I have absolutely no problem with that.

But as Dr. X pointed out, that's not real life. We never "know" someone's guilty.

Jedi Knight

4th March 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Doctor X
After reading this I almost miss chasing my quarry around the Religion and Philosophy forum.

One problem we have is the difference with personal and individual policy and a collective policy. Many analogies involve a personal case:

You see the evil Michael Jackson fan--I know, redundant, but bear with me--holding a knife against the throat of your wife, whom, yes, you actually care about.

Question: do you beat him up to find out where he hid the remote?

So, a person, an individual, may stoop to become the monster when he knows the target is not only guilty of something unspeakable, but will commit further evil 'n all.

The problem is then making a rational policy.

Fine, this Al-Quaeda guy is a scum bag, fine, apparently he even boasted about his involvement in various terrorism cases. Indeed, rumors have it that he has contacted Johnnie Cochran which a recent Supreme Court decision held constitutes admissable evidence for guilt.

So, in this case it can seem "justified." Add to the fact that this individual has no qualms committing such on others.

Right.

Good.

When does it stop?

Quite a few posters have noted the problem with "I-know-he-is-guilty" and "I-know-he-has-information." A brief review of the festivities in Salem and most of the less-pleasant witch trials should enlighten one on the reliability of torture and its abuse.

Indeed, is not one of the "nasty things" Sadaam does is torture?

Ethics:

One cannot forget the ethics. I am afraid it does remove one from a moral ground when one engages in the activities of the monsters. Many "bad means" have been "justified" by "bad ends."

Did the forced internment of American citizens in WWII prevent spying?

Practicality:

Now, a practical problem--this debate seems a bit pointless if it does not work.

A bit of argumentum ad ignorantium in that I have no way to verify this--take it with the appropriate pound of salt. According to a "talking head" who claimed Special Forces expertise in interrogation--and fighting interrogation--physical torture--pinchers, blow torches, Neil Diamond 8-tracks--does not yield reliable information and--another pound of salt--the US refuses to allow it on anyone in their jurisdiction. Thus, according to him, you cannot transport a prisoner to the Castle of Vlad the Impailer--Daily tours available!--just to get him to tell you where he hid the car keys.

My point [ZZzzzzzzzzz.--Ed.] is that, according to an "expert"--if you believe it--physical torture may simply not be effective.

Another point he raised was that "inmates like to talk." He did allow sleep deprivation, dishonoring--allowing women to conduct examinations which would piss-off a devout Moslem--and frank deception.

Some might consider this torture. This begins to get a bit like "it depends on what 'is' is." One man's torture is another's round of golf.

I think the poll tries to separate that. I think most see physical as causing pain and damage as opposed to stress. However, stress may cause permanent damage.

Right, I am afraid I consider myself wanting my nation to adhere to the principles it exposes. If put into a "24" situation, would I "over-step the line?" That would depend primarily on whether or not it would help my renewal for another season. Other than that, I do not know. I may, and be judged accordingly.

When one makes "overstepping the line" a part of a national policy or governmental policy, one legitimizes evil.

And, I thought, we were all in the business of combatting evil.

--J.D.

Humor Interlude:

The best torture scene is in the James Cagney film, One, Two, Three!. Here, an East German--remember them?--has been "framed" and arrested by the Ruskies and East Germans. You see the obviously sleep-deprived prisoner and the obviously angry and inpatient interrogator. He kicks over the table, but this is only an act of frustrion.

He snaps his fingers.

Underlings, with trembling, insert ear plugs. Someone brings a "Disney-Micky Mouse" type 45 rpm record player. Upon it they place a warped record.

Soon, emenate the sounds of "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini!"

The prisoner screams!! He confesses to everything.

Terrorist combatants have no rights. None of them do. That is why they are interred in Cuba. If they had "rights" they would be in America being nurtured by the leftist apologists who love them. The US Constitution does not provide rights to foreign terrorist combatants.

JK

ZeeGerman

4th March 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

In my example if it were not known for sure that the guy has the info then the torture warrant would be denied.

Simple as that. Yours is an example of my system working. A possible torture of a prisoner averted. IMHO a law officer would be loathe to break the law and resort to torture if there are legal channels to go thru...once such a legal request was denied it would be far less likely our friendly terror suspect would be tortured at all.

-zilla

You did not answer all my questions though. Suppose, you really know for sure and the guy wouldn't fess up. How long will you torture him non lethally?

Anyway, I will grant you that under the exact circumstances you described some creative form of interrogation might be justifiable. Preferably the use of drugs to make him talkative. There must be somthing like that around for sure?

Zee

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by sundog

OK Rik, I gave you a chance. One day you will learn.

:rolleyes: Why, thank you evah so much Miss Scarlet!

Please, without abusing the "slippery slope" argument, tell me what would prevent the scenario I talked about? If Americans commonly start torturing people to get information out of them, how can you possibly say that our enemies won't use it against us and rub it in our faces? They know how Americans will react to that.

Show me where I ever said torture should or would be commonly allowable under the system I proposed. I fully believe this system would work to prevent torture...not encourage it's use. I advocated torture under the very narrowest of guidelines. Do you suppose what is happening now to KSM is somehow more moral because it's happening out of our sight? Wouldn't judicial oversight actually be more limiting than the nothingness that is currently in place?

It's not a slippery slope at all - it's simple cause and effect. Logical arguments don't work that way, you can't run to base and shout "Slippery slope" as if it's a magic phrase; you have to defend your arguments.

Please go read Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" This is from said "kit" :
"slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);"

The REAL reason you are waffling is made clear here:

#3...the codification of torture in law by the leader of the free world is the biggest negative in my eyes. I see no easy way around that one.

In other words you know I'm right. That's why you won't craft a real response. [/B]

I don't believe you were the one who coherrently brought this up in the first place. I think it was Jeremy's assertion. And yes, I plainly stated I have no answer for that question...I never avoided it...it's just that you never asked it in a proper way. Go read Sagan...it'll help your debating style.

-zilla

4th March 2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

I don't believe you were the one who coherrently brought this up in the first place. I think it was Jeremy's assertion. And yes, I plainly stated I have no answer for that question...I never avoided it...it's just that you never asked it in a proper way. Go read Sagan...it'll help your debating style.

-zilla

Sorry, I decline to take lessons from a fool who can't post a single message without multiple misspellings in it. You may not presume to try to teach me anything until you master basic things like the difference between "it's" and "its".

My debating style is just fine... and in any case, you are not equipped to judge it. There are some on this board whom I would listen to if they thought they caught me in a logical fallacy. You are decidedly not one of them.

See what happens when you start down that "slippery slope" of disrespecting your debating opponent?

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Sorry, I decline to take lessons from a fool who can't post a single message without multiple misspellings in it. You may not presume to try to teach me anything until you master basic things like the difference between "it's" and "its".

My debating style is just fine... and in any case, you are not equipped to judge it. There are some on this board whom I would listen to if they thought they caught me in a logical fallacy. You are decidedly not one of them.

Now you are being pedantic.

sad really...you had such potential. I must now put you on my dumbass list.

Let me clue you in....pointing out spelling mistakes on a forum is an exercise in futility and is a tactic used to divert attention away from the debate.

-z

4th March 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Now you are being pedantic.

sad really...you had such potential. I must now put you on my dumbass list.

Let me clue you in....pointing out spelling mistakes on a forum is an exercise in futility and is a tactic used to divert attention away from the debate.

-z

Let ME clue YOU in, since you're too slow to pick up on it; I picked on your apparent illiteracy because you started down that "slippery slope" by repeatedly dismissing my arguments with insults. I was showing you that you had better have your own house in order before you start snapping at the heels of your betters.

As to potential, once again, you are in a position to admire it but not to judge it.

Calling me a dumbass is downright hilarious. You know perfectly well that I probably have 20 to 30 IQ points on you.

4th March 2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

I must now put you on my dumbass list.

-z

Five minute irony break.

4th March 2003, 10:37 AM

Well, since I'm now on Rik's ignore list for being a dumbass, the rest of you must soldier on without me.

Don't let him get away with evading this question:

If the US adopts torture as a legitimate method of obtaining information, what is to stop our enemies from retaliating in the most obvious way, by wholesale torture of American soldiers?

He squirms and squeals and cries and whines, but he cannot answer this question. He'll complain about the way it's worded; rephrase it until you get an answer out of him.

This was downright fun. :D

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Five minute irony break.

You are as loony as AUP and Shanek....welcome to the list, it's a short one.

BTW..it's not an ignore list. My policy is strict...there is no one on my ignore list. It's a list of people who do not honestly debate, even though they seem to want to. It is a list of people who have no integrity and are therefore not taken seriously.

-z

4th March 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

You are as loony as AUP and Shanek....welcome to the list, it's a short one.

I cannot tell you how pleased I am that a rightwing nutcase who would rewrite the Constitution to allow torture, because he's so scared of terrorists that he's peeing his pants, considers me a loony.

The fact is, you can't answer my points, so you pretend I'm an idiot. Coming from you especially, this is a doomed tactic.

You know perfectly well that you're making a fool of yourself by saying I have no integrity, and so does everyone else here. YOU are the amoral coward who wants to rewrite the Constitution so he doesn't have to be afraid, not me.

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by sundog

I cannot tell you how pleased I am that a rightwing nutcase who would rewrite the Constitution to allow torture, because he's so scared of terrorists that he's peeing his pants, considers me a loony.

The fact is, you can't answer my points, so you pretend I'm an idiot. Coming from you especially, this is a doomed tactic.

You know perfectly well that you're making a fool of yourself, and so does everyone else here.

Anyone want to play "spot the fallacies?" :rolleyes:
:D :D :D

-zilla

4th March 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Anyone want to play "spot the fallacies?" :rolleyes:
:D :D :D

-zilla

Obviously YOU can't, or you'd do so.

Who are you talking to? Are you under the impression that anyone AGREES with you?

Q-Source

4th March 2003, 10:47 AM

Just a few days ago Rikzilla said to Sundog

Sundog...

I respect you, Wayne, Geoff, and Vic a great deal. You are all honest and thoughtful people whom I just happen to disagree with very much.

Don't take Q-S to heart...he has no track record as an honest and thoughtful poster here....If I were you I'd be more concerned with how people here that you have respect for yourself think of you. This place has plenty of trolls and nuts....from every part of the political spectrum.
-zilla

Now Rikzilla say to Sundog

You are as loony as AUP and Shanek....welcome to the list, it's a short one.

BTW..it's not an ignore list. My policy is strict...there is no one on my ignore list. It's a list of people who do not honestly debate, even though they seem to want to. It is a list of people who have no integrity and are therefore not taken seriously.

Speaking of honesty... :rolleyes:

4th March 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
Just a few days ago Rikzilla said to Sundog

Now Rikzilla say to Sundog

Speaking of honesty... :rolleyes:

Is that an apology? If so, accepted. We leftist nutcases have to stick together.

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

You did not answer all my questions though. Suppose, you really know for sure and the guy wouldn't fess up. How long will you torture him non lethally?

Anyway, I will grant you that under the exact circumstances you described some creative form of interrogation might be justifiable. Preferably the use of drugs to make him talkative. There must be somthing like that around for sure?

Zee

Let us now interrupt the hijacked portion of this thread and return to the debate.

Zee,

I doubt there is anyone alive who could indure torture for very long. Look at the stream of info comming from KSM's arrest already! Of course any legal resort to torture would have limits. What is happening to KMS right now has no limits. Believe me,..I could care less what they do to him. The debate at hand though is that if we believe torture is so heinous why are we allowing it to happen via surrogates? Wouldn't it be more humane and less hypocritical for the US to just admit and thereby limit it's use?

-zilla

4th March 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Let us now interrupt the hijacked portion of this thread and return to the debate.

ROFL!

No one is being fooled, Rik. But keep it up if it makes you feel better.

Congratulations for finding a nice, safe question you can answer.

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by sundog

I cannot tell you how pleased I am that a rightwing nutcase who would rewrite the Constitution to allow torture, because he's so scared of terrorists that he's peeing his pants, considers me a loony.

straw man -- caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance -- a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn't. Or -- this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy -- environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people);

The fact is, you can't answer my points, so you pretend I'm an idiot. Coming from you especially, this is a doomed tactic.

What points?????

You know perfectly well that you're making a fool of yourself by saying I have no integrity, and so does everyone else here. YOU are the amoral coward who wants to rewrite the Constitution so he doesn't have to be afraid, not me.

straw man -- caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance -- a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn't. Or -- this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy -- environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people);

Go pay a visit to Carl Sagan (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganbd.htm) perhaps you'd take a lesson if it was from him instead of me.

-zilla

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by sundog

ROFL!

No one is being fooled, Rik. But keep it up if it makes you feel better.

Congratulations for finding a nice, safe question you can answer.

Please cease your attempts to hijack the debate. We had a good discussion going and your attempts to shout it down are disrupting the conversation.

-z

4th March 2003, 10:58 AM

I'll say anything I like, thank you very much.

Answer the question.

If the US adopts torture as a legitimate method of obtaining information, what is to stop our enemies from retaliating in the most obvious way, by wholesale torture of American soldiers?

We all see. Questions you don't want to tackle are attempts to hijack the discussion. Sure.

But since this has degenerated into namecalling I'll shut up now and let everyone else pound you.

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by sundog
I'll say anything I like, thank you very much.

Answer the question.

If the US adopts torture as a legitimate method of obtaining information, what is to stop our enemies from retaliating in the most obvious way, by wholesale torture of American soldiers?

We all see. Questions you don't want to tackle are attempts to hijack the discussion. Sure.

But since this has degenerated into namecalling I'll shut up now and let everyone else pound you.

Daniel Pearl

Troll

4th March 2003, 11:10 AM

Megalodon

4th March 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Troll
Megalodon, I apologize for my part of our little personal insult war. I've never claimed to be one to seek the moral high ground. There always tends to be someone that finds even higher ground and then pissing contests like ours begin.

But I have to ask, would you let people die in order to preserve your self-esteem?

And this is out there for anyone and everyone, although it's probably going to just be an American thing because I don't know what shows are televised where, but has anyone been watching the current season of 24? If so is there any problems you have with acts that have been committed in the show?

As I said, I started the hostilities, so its cool :)

The problem here is not what I would do. I would use all my knowledge of the Spanish Inquisition to make the guy talk.
But that would be out of frustration, and would acomplish nothing. We are talking about religious fanatics, that have nothing to lose. He wouldn't talk, or if he did, the info would be wrong.
I would end up with 3001 corpses, and would have to turn myself in.

But all this is a tangent. We're discussing legalizing torture, and this black or white scenario adds nothing significant to the debate.

Once again, I thank you for your apologie, but none was needed. And at that stage of the debate, the exchange was inevitable ;)

edited to fix a typo

ZeeGerman

4th March 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Let us now interrupt the hijacked portion of this thread and return to the debate.

Zee,

The debate at hand though is that if we believe torture is so heinous why are we allowing it to happen via surrogates? Wouldn't it be more humane and less hypocritical for the US to just admit and thereby limit it's use?

-zilla

It sure would. It would be even more human to not have him tortured at all, he doesn't fall under the cases you would see OK to torture"legally", does he?

Zee

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

It sure would. It would be even more human to not have him tortured at all, he doesn't fall under the cases you would see OK to torture"legally", does he?

Zee

No...indeed he does not (that I know of anyway).

But see how a legal structure could be used? He'd be in the US right now....and likely under no torture...if the system I'm talking about was set up somehow. (Not to speak of the detainees in Cuba!)

-zilla

ZeeGerman

4th March 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

No...indeed he does not (that I know of anyway).

But see how a legal structure could be used? He'd be in the US right now....and likely under no torture...if the system I'm talking about was set up somehow. (Not to speak of the detainees in Cuba!)

-zilla
I see that it could work. What I also see is that installing some legal way of torture for extreme cases will nevertheless damage the whole image of US legslation as representing human rights and just values. And it's these values that are to be defended, aren't they. I doubt that this damage is worth taking to preserve a number of n 1000 lives in a hypothetical situation.

The prisoner should be in the states by now just as the guys held in Cuba and face prosecution, trial, conviction or freedom.

Zee

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by ZeeGerman

I see that it could work. What I also see is that installing some legal way of torture for extreme cases will nevertheless damage the whole image of US legslation as representing human rights and just values. And it's these values that are to be defended, aren't they. I doubt that this damage is worth taking to preserve a number of n 1000 lives in a hypothetical situation.

The prisoner should be in the states by now just as the guys held in Cuba and face prosecution, trial, conviction or freedom.

Zee

That's the main problem with it. If we give it the legitimacy of law, other states may use our law to justify their less limited use of it. I don't know the way around that issue. Perhaps this means that it is actually better to embrace hypocrisy in some cases???? :confused: Maybe.

-zilla

billydkid

4th March 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by LW
I am not so easy to surprise, but this thread managed to do that. I wouldn't have believed that so many posters think that torturing the "bad guys" is a good idea. Just remember that in the end people who are in charge get to define who is a "bad guy".

I don't believe in social or cultural relativism. There are good guys and bad guys. The are good societies and bad ones. Mind you, I am not saying, necessarily, that we are the good guys, but I have heard many kneejerk types defend the likes of Saudi Arabia where a woman is stoned to death for adultery - cultural relativism. We don't do that in the USA and we are better than them for it.

Now, honestly, I believe the US is wrong about many things and has behaved abomidibly more than a few times in it's short history and I fantasize about the day this country lives up to it's creed, but I can say with no apologies that it is a far better place than most other countries on earth. I don't really support torture, but I think many folks in here have a simplistic and naive view of the world. And it is not that difficult for me to imagine a scenario where the lesser evil would be to subject someone to torture. On a personal level, I would do it in a second and with bells on if meant saving the life of a loved one.

I do believe this country should adhere to it's principles and that those principles should not be discarded in times of crisis, but there are situations where there is no acceptable choice yet there is no alternative except to choose. Honestly, this general terrorism hysteria in this country gives me the creeps and I hate like hell to see the principles on which the country was founded being eroded - I agree that once you loose the principles you lose the country. I do not see America as a piece of real estate, but as an idea - a not entirely fulfilled idea.

And I agree that it is pointless to destroy the very thing you say you are defending - liberty, freedom and so on. But, I have to say, the government's first and ultimate responsibility is to defend it's citizens. And I expect the well being of it's citizens to rank in it's consideration above that of the citizens of other nations. It is THOSE nation's governments whos responsibility it is to look out for their citizens well being. The fact that many of them choose not to do so is a fair indicator of the nature of their culture.

Often, both on an individual level and in general, I have seen an inclination to be more for other people and less for yourself in this country. Somehow, this is considered to be the high moral ground, but I disagree. That does not mean that I believe others should not be considered and treated fairly, it merely means that it is not necessarily moral to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others who are also only too happy to help you do just that. If you don't have yourself, you have nothing. It is not a crime, moral or otherwise, to be for yourself. At the expense of others, yes, but in general principle, no. I'll leave the "love those who hate you" thing to the Christ and the saints.

However they justify it to themselves, the terrorists and those who support them are the instigators and their actions are atrocious (as in atrocity) and fundamentally indefensible. Mercy should be reserved for those who deserve it, and yes, in cases like this we are the ones who decide who deserves it and I would make no apologies for that. The same applies to violent criminals of any sort. They forfeited their right to mercy when transgressed the boundries of ordinary human decency and civility. There are good guy and there are bad guys. It is not all relative and we don't all deserve the same consideration.

NoZed Avenger

4th March 2003, 02:56 PM

IMO, "Torture" -- as it is commonly understood -- should not and cannot be legitimized as a legally or governmentally sanctioned policy.

That is from a very conservative American -- not that the opinion will make it into the scrapbook of anyone looking to confirm their own biases on the subject.

NA

rikzilla

4th March 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by billydkid

I don't believe in social or cultural relativism. There are good guys and bad guys. The are good societies and bad ones. Mind you, I am not saying, necessarily, that we are the good guys, but I have heard many kneejerk types defend the likes of Saudi Arabia where a woman is stoned to death for adultery - cultural relativism. We don't do that in the USA and we are better than them for it.

Now, honestly, I believe the US is wrong about many things and has behaved abomidibly more than a few times in it's short history and I fantasize about the day this country lives up to it's creed, but I can say with no apologies that it is a far better place than most other countries on earth. I don't really support torture, but I think many folks in here have a simplistic and naive view of the world. And it is not that difficult for me to imagine a scenario where the lesser evil would be to subject someone to torture. On a personal level, I would do it in a second and with bells on if meant saving the life of a loved one.

I do believe this country should adhere to it's principles and that those principles should not be discarded in times of crisis, but there are situations where there is no acceptable choice yet there is no alternative except to choose. Honestly, this general terrorism hysteria in this country gives me the creeps and I hate like hell to see the principles on which the country was founded being eroded - I agree that once you loose the principles you lose the country. I do not see America as a piece of real estate, but as an idea - a not entirely fulfilled idea.

And I agree that it is pointless to destroy the very thing you say you are defending - liberty, freedom and so on. But, I have to say, the government's first and ultimate responsibility is to defend it's citizens. And I expect the well being of it's citizens to rank in it's consideration above that of the citizens of other nations. It is THOSE nation's governments whos responsibility it is to look out for their citizens well being. The fact that many of them choose not to do so is a fair indicator of the nature of their culture.

Often, both on an individual level and in general, I have seen an inclination to be more for other people and less for yourself in this country. Somehow, this is considered to be the high moral ground, but I disagree. That does not mean that I believe others should not be considered and treated fairly, it merely means that it is not necessarily moral to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others who are also only too happy to help you do just that. If you don't have yourself, you have nothing. It is not a crime, moral or otherwise, to be for yourself. At the expense of others, yes, but in general principle, no. I'll leave the "love those who hate you" thing to the Christ and the saints.

However they justify it to themselves, the terrorists and those who support them are the instigators and their actions are atrocious (as in atrocity) and fundamentally indefensible. Mercy should be reserved for those who deserve it, and yes, in cases like this we are the ones who decide who deserves it and I would make no apologies for that. The same applies to violent criminals of any sort. They forfeited their right to mercy when transgressed the boundries of ordinary human decency and civility. There are good guy and there are bad guys. It is not all relative and we don't all deserve the same consideration.

Billy

That's the best, most realistic post I've had the good fortune to read here. I also am no fan of torture...but just by proposing that if it is done it should be done under the law I have been held up as some kind of villain. Yes, sometimes we must make the tragic choice in order to lessen the tragedy.

Sundog called me a coward, afraid of terrorism. I am afraid. I live and work every day in the middle of our nation's capitol. I am proud and honored to be a small cog in the machine. Doing what little I can to help this government's fight against the terrorists. Sure I'm afraid...but I come to work every day...just like so many thousands of my countrymen to this great bullseye of the terrorists. I watched the Pentagon burn with my own eyes. I don't really much care for Sundog calling me names...he isn't here, he doesn't live in a bullseye. Actually he can kiss my a$$. I am not alone in my fear of terrorism...but none of us allow it to stop us from doing our jobs every fu#king day. You wanna call that cowardice go ahead. Coming from you it's bound to be a compliment. :mad:

Just remember if they gas or nuke DC...here's one civilian who is not innocent!!! I will be guilty of helping prosecute this WOT every day for the rest of my life. If the terrorists kill me they'll be lucky that they got one of their enemies. If they kill Sundog they'll be just as happy because they iced an American...see for them any American will do. Even one that is ideologically no different from themselves. :mad: That's the rub. They don't give a $hit who they kill, maim or torture. They use civilians as both their sheild and sword. They won't be able to hide behind them much longer though.

In Iraq....well my guess is next monday. No moon. State Department gossip has been heard and noted on the old slug-line (http://www.slug-lines.com/) it's only a rumor mind you. If I knew for sure I'd never post it....I figure it's already in the public domain. 'Sides it might not be true....but there it is for your reading and pondering pleasure.

-zilla

gnome

4th March 2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla
That's the main problem with it. If we give it the legitimacy of law, other states may use our law to justify their less limited use of it. I don't know the way around that issue. Perhaps this means that it is actually better to embrace hypocrisy in some cases???? :confused: Maybe.

-zilla

How about this angle: If, as you propose, the only permissible instances of torture are circumstances so clear that no sane person would refuse to do so, is a law permitting it at such times really necessary?

I mean, if you actually save a million people from a ticking bomb by torturing a scumbag for info, how quickly are they going to line up to prosecute you?

I imagine a presidential pardon wouldn't be out of the question in such a case.

Megalodon

5th March 2003, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by billydkid

On a personal level, I would do it in a second and with bells on if meant saving the life of a loved one.

On a personal level, in a black or white scenario, almost everybody would. But we are talking about implementing torture as a law, and out of the movies, there is never a black and white situation.

I do believe this country should adhere to it's principles and that those principles should not be discarded in times of crisis, but there are situations where there is no acceptable choice yet there is no alternative except to choose.

So you believe your "country should adhere to it's principles and that those principles should not be discarded in times of crisis" unless those principles stand in your way. Good for you...

And I expect the well being of it's citizens to rank in it's consideration above that of the citizens of other nations.

And when the terrorist is american, then what?

the terrorists and those who support them are the instigators and their actions are atrocious (as in atrocity) and fundamentally indefensible.

In a free country, no action is indefensible, because everybody is inocent until proven guilty.
And BTW, under torture, and after a while, everybody claims to be guilty

Mercy should be reserved for those who deserve it, and yes, in cases like this we are the ones who decide who deserves it and I would make no apologies for that.

Who's we? When a law like that is passed, then things start happening, and an anonymous tip is all that takes to put you, or someone you love, through hell.

The same applies to violent criminals of any sort. They forfeited their right to mercy when transgressed the boundries of ordinary human decency and civility.

So you defend torture for violent criminals. That should boost the confession rate. Of course, I would guess there's already too many inocent people on death row, but suit yourself.

Who knows, maybe you will end there as well, after confessing, under torture, a crime you never heard of. It happened before, you know...

There are good guy and there are bad guys. It is not all relative and we don't all deserve the same consideration.

Suit yourself. Just remember you will have to live with that law and its consequences...

5th March 2003, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by billydkid
There are good guy and there are bad guys. It is not all relative and we don't all deserve the same consideration.
Whether "good" and "evil" are absolute or not has nothing to do with the matter. The only thing that matters is how the persons who authorize torture think. Remember that many (if not most) nazis thought that they were the good guys who were saving the western civilization from barbarism. The same thing holds for communists. They thought (at least originally) that they were building a paradise on earth. I'd say that nothing is more dangerous than a person who perceives himself (or herself) as fighting for a noble cause.

If you allow torture, how on earth can you make certain that only the "bad guys" get it? For how long do the "good guy" torturers stay "good guys"?

Megalodon

5th March 2003, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by Troll
Bitch is dead. Yay for us

C*nt wanted to see more British born, american muslims die.

so yeah. I beat your momma to feath because she sucks and tries to instigate s**t

Have you been playing in the medicin cabinet again?? :D

Q-Source

5th March 2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by LW

If you allow torture, how on earth can you make certain that only the "bad guys" get it? For how long do the "good guy" torturers stay "good guys"?

Excellent post.
Who is the bad or good guy is subjective. We always assume that we are the good guys, so any action, decision or method that we apply to achieve our objectives are always going to be correct.

It is difficult to live in a world like this.

Q-S

Graham

5th March 2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Let us now interrupt the hijacked portion of this thread and return to the debate.

Zee,

I doubt there is anyone alive who could indure torture for very long. Look at the stream of info comming from KSM's arrest already! Of course any legal resort to torture would have limits. What is happening to KMS right now has no limits. Believe me,..I could care less what they do to him. The debate at hand though is that if we believe torture is so heinous why are we allowing it to happen via surrogates? Wouldn't it be more humane and less hypocritical for the US to just admit and thereby limit it's use?

-zilla

I submit that what would be more humane and less hypocritical would be for the US to condemn the use of torture in all its forms and cease the practice of handing prisoners over to third party nations where there is a suspicion that they might be subjected to torture (just as many anti-death-penalty nations now refuse to extradite prsioners when they might face that penalty).

IMO, it's a very good question: if we believe torture is so heinous why are we allowing it to happen via surrogates? Who has authorised this? Who is supervising it? Why are Americans allowing this practice to continue in their names?

Is there a stream of information coming from KSM's arrest? How can you judge its value? If this KSM is "naming names" - how do you know thy are the right names? Maybe they're just people he doesn't like or maybe he's just giving the names of lesser operatives as, all the while, the timer on the dirty bomb in the Lincoln Tunnel continues to tick?

Finally, you doubt that there is anyone alive who could endure torture for long. This is simply incorrect as I understand it. Depending on the methods used, people can resist torture for quite some time, especially if a "time limit" is involved - for example if the subject knows that he only has to hold out for x number of hours before the bomb goes off (which kind of f***s with your scenario).

Graham

Graham

5th March 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

#1. Okay...in some cases torture would be ineffective. I agree.

#2. Torture could be abused...I agree...and I think it is being abused by 3rd party nations that we are currently sending these terror suspects to in order to keep our hands clean. (just a note, but does anyone think this isn't happening?) Personally, I believe that use of a lawfull "torture warrant" would make this practise far less likely to ever occur. Stay with me here people,....the way to limit torture is to regulate it...not be so squeamish we can't even talk about it!

#3...the codification of torture in law by the leader of the free world is the biggest negative in my eyes. I see no easy way around that one.

#4 Torture is against American values....this is true. But is not hypocrisy also against our values? When we engage in hypocrisy over something so abhorrent as torture is that not worse still?

#5 Yes....it is a recognition that sometimes and in some cases the ends do truly justify the means.

#6 Yes, but those states engage in unregulated and unrestricted activity of this nature. Apples and oranges there my friend. The argument I am putting forward is that well regulated use of torture would foster creation of a mechanism by which torture would become actually less likely than it is now.

-zilla

Sorry I'm a bit behind the debate her - honestly, you go away for a few hours and . . . :D

Anyhoo,

#1 From what I've read (and I'll be posting some links shortly) torture is ineffective in most cases, when used purely as an interrogative tool. Where torture is more effective is as a deterrant to others but that's a whole 'nother debate.

#2 Torture cannot be abused - torture is abuse. It's an abuse of basic human rights and no, I don't agree that these people have forfeited their right to any consideration because it's not about them it's about us .

As I said before, if it was me on the ground then I probably would do it, just as (as someone else said) I don't think I woul dbe able to restrain myself if someone harmed my daughters in any way at all. I would be a lesser person if I didn't though and we would be lesser people if we permitted the torture of suspects.

Note that last word, btw - what you are proposing is the torture of suspects - no innoccent until proven guilty for them then, hey?

#3 Actually this is the least of the objections - countries that do not support America (and I presume it's the US you're reffering to with "the leader of the free world" - pardon me but I'm pretty sure I'm in the free world and he's not my leader) do not look to the US for an example and will do as they please regardless.

#4 As I said, I don't think we should be endorsing torture by "friendly states" but even if we are and continue to do so, no - hypocrisy is not worse than openly endorsing something as appalling as torture.

#5 "In some cases" Individually, emotionally, perhaps but not as a policy of a civilised nation.

#6 Torture will continue in other countries just as before, the only difference is that the US will be doing it too.

Graham

Edited to fix a missing "i"

Doctor X

5th March 2003, 08:24 AM

. . . raises megaphone to lips. . . .

JK:

However you have not established that they are "terrorist combatants." Now, yes, it may seem obvious of course, however, I am afraid "obvious" can become subjective and abused.

Furthermore, as others have stated, if you mistreat "terrorist combatants" you provide justification for their actions.

--J.D.

Troll

5th March 2003, 08:31 AM

Damnit. Is there a way to remove ignorant drunken posts like the last three I made?

My apologies folks. Been having a hard time sleeping and have a few before bed after work. I sincerely had no idea I even posted here, let alone had the ability to type.

5th March 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Actually he can kiss my a$$. -zilla

Rik,

I apologize for not expressing myself calmly. I also forgot something about you: you don't mind throwing punches yourself but when people punch you back, you take it very personally. For instance, YOU brought the word "coward" up, then got very offended when I turned the tables on you. Once again, I apologize for provoking you and yes, intentionally poking you with a sharp stick.

But you have to consider one thing: Very often the things you espouse are rather unbelievable to some of us. It's difficult to know how to respond calmly to someone who thinks a discussion should take place on how to codify torture. In the minds of the overwhelming majority of us, civilized humans do not have such discussions. Period.

Megalodon

5th March 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Troll
Damnit. Is there a way to remove ignorant drunken posts like the last three I made?

My apologies folks. Been having a hard time sleeping and have a few before bed after work. I sincerely had no idea I even posted here, let alone had the ability to type.

You could, but why bother?? Besides, it was funny, specially the "stay focused" part

:D

Troll

5th March 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

Have you been playing in the medicin cabinet again?? :D

Close. See I'm proof that coherent information may not always be obtained from simple things such as sleep deprivation and intoxicants. haha It would be better to beat me for answers and keep me sober.

I PM'd hal and asked if the three posts could be removed, then I saw that hal had pm'd me with a warning about the language. I think the next time I can't sleep I'll just go for a jog or something, though the snow on the ground and 4am may make that a bit messy

Troll

5th March 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

You could, but why bother?? Besides, it was funny, specially the "stay focused" part

:D

well yeah, drunk people are often funny to some. And I discovered that I could delete them on my own. The reason why is I really had nothing to say and have no idea why I decided to say anything at all, let alone the fact that what I apparently did say didn't seem to apply to anything here anyhow, but then that's the nature of things under the influence of fatigue and alcohol I suppose. :D

rikzilla

5th March 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by sundog

But you have to consider one thing: Very often the things you espouse are rather unbelievable to some of us. It's difficult to know how to respond calmly to someone who thinks a discussion should take place on how to codify torture. In the minds of the overwhelming majority of us, civilized humans do not have such discussions. Period.

We live in a real world, full of real bad stuff. Not talking about it will not make it go away. I 9mistakenly it seems) thought we could have a grown up discussion of real issues. Instead it seems folks here would rather not know what is being done in their name to protect them. Fair enough. I merely thought that if torture was useful in certain limited scenarios...and I articulated those circumstances....then perhaps we could insure that there were indeed checks and balances in place to limit this most heinous of state human rights crime. Right now there are no such checks and balances. None of us have any idea what is being done with KMS in our names. Is that really the way you want it? To be an abuser of human rights under very strict circumstances is one thing...but to support hypocrisy by placing your head firmly in the sand and living like Cleopatra...in the land of denial is unsupportable by any argument.

Terrorists don't pay homage to the Geneva conventions. They murder, torture, rape, with no remorse and abide by no law. When one of our soldiers was captured by al Qaida at the battle of Tora Bora he was literally torn limb from limb. Protection from torture for our soldiers...or even our civilians (Daniel Pearl)...is a fable that you may believe in Sundog, but you're fooling yourself just like our Christian friends fool themselves about the big guy in the sky.

Personally I am against torture and targeted assasination. But in our real world, that we quite obviously don't like thinking about too hard, these things happen are are actually in many cases less evil than the alternative. Targeted assasination if it could be employed against Saddam might have saved thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and stopped a war. Torture in some cases might actually save thousands of lives. But, oh no, we can't think about such things. Lets not be intellectually honest with each other and the world...let's just have our nasty old CIA protect us by doing whatever dirty tactic is needed....and if we find out about any of it we can plausabliy deny any knowledge of it and then go and have a fine old anti-CIA and anti-America rally, smoke some dope and pat ourselves on the back for our pristine humanism.

Doesn't anyone else here think that stinks? Just because we refuse to face reality doesn't mean it's not gonna happen...it's just gonna happen without any input or oversight from the people of this country. A people who should have the moral courage to face facts head-on and take tough and public decisions. What happened to the government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

We have to strike an appropriate balance between our security and our civil rights. How can we do that when we can't even bring ourselves to face reality and just simply talk about some of the toughest decisions we may face?? :confused: Isn't this dialog what free speech is all about?? Will it really take another 9/11 or worse before people here start to face up to just how nasty this WOT is...and is going...to get?

-zilla

Graham

5th March 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Megalodon

You could, but why bother?? Besides, it was funny, specially the "stay focused" part

The funny part is that I assumed it made some sort of sense and that I was just being dim!

:D

Troll

5th March 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Graham

The funny part is that I assumed it made some sort of sense and that I was just being dim!

:D

Well now I don't feel so embarassed by it. at least not compared to what you must feel. haha ;)

Graham

5th March 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

We live in a real world, full of real bad stuff. Not talking about it will not make it go away. I 9mistakenly it seems) thought we could have a grown up discussion of real issues. Instead it seems folks here would rather not know what is being done in their name to protect them. Fair enough. I merely thought that if torture was useful in certain limited scenarios...and I articulated those circumstances....then perhaps we could insure that there were indeed checks and balances in place to limit this most heinous of state human rights crime. Right now there are no such checks and balances. None of us have any idea what is being done with KMS in our names. Is that really the way you want it? To be an abuser of human rights under very strict circumstances is one thing...but to support hypocrisy by placing your head firmly in the sand and living like Cleopatra...in the land of denial is unsupportable by any argument.

(snip)

We have to strike an appropriate balance between our security and our civil rights. How can we do that when we can't even bring ourselves to face reality and just simply talk about some of the toughest decisions we may face?? :confused: Isn't this dialog what free speech is all about?? Will it really take another 9/11 or worse before people here start to face up to just how nasty this WOT is...and is going...to get?

-zilla

Again, I have to go but I'll just stay long enough to say that:

a) We are trying to discuss the issues but your ignoring our arguments and saying the same thing over and over again.

b) I don't think torture is useful, even in the limited circumstances you describe (see above)

c)I don't think these things should be going on in our names and I would like to know what we can do to stop it. Amnesty International - where are you? (AI, btw, are IMHO a bunch of w***ers who'd rather post graphic leaflets through your door for children to find than actually do anything but that's beside the point)

d) "Living like Cleopatra"? wtf?

e) "Terrorists don't pay homage to the Geneva conventions" - that's why they're the bad guys and we're the good guys

f) "Torture in some cases might actually save thousands of lives" that is so far unsubstaniated in this thread. Even if your pure black and white hypothetical situation ever occured you have failed to show that torutre would resolve the situation satisfactorily.

g) But, oh no, we can't think about such things" - I object to that, I have thought about it and I hav posted my opinions, as have others. You have not adequetly addressed our concerns so why should we agree with you?

h) Torturing people is not "an appropriate balance" - for the reasons stated repeatedly above

i) "Will it really take another 9/11 or worse before people here start to face up to just how nasty this WOT is...and is going...to get?" - you see here's the problem, I don't disagree that the WOT is going to get "nasty" (by which I assume you mean torturing suspects), I only disagree that it should.

YOu say these things are goingon so we should regulate them. Bank robberies go on every day - should we just pass a law making it legal for certain persons to rob baks on certain occassions, perhaps when they really, really need the money - after all, they're doing it anyway!

:rolleyes: Graham

Troll

5th March 2003, 09:32 AM

Oh! I think I recall the reason for the "stay focused" thing. Oddly enough I think it was because of a comment you made, Megalodon.

It's pertaining to comments about making torture a law. When used by the people I previously stated that would be allowed to use it in certain cases, I don't consider it a law so much as an ability allowed to be used by a very few select individuals. The law says you can't have a gun on a plane, but Sky or air Marshalls are allowed to. We're talking torture here so I really want to avoid saying it's a privilege only a few can have. I'm simply saying that in the way I described my vision of it to Graham earlier there would be some that are authorized the use of it in extreme cases

5th March 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Protection from torture for our soldiers...or even our civilians (Daniel Pearl)...is a fable that you may believe in Sundog, but you're fooling yourself just like our Christian friends fool themselves about the big guy in the sky.
-zilla

You continue to misrepresent my point, whether purposely or because you just don't see it. Let me try once more to be very clear.

I have no illusions. I know perfectly well that torture happens when war happens. I don't believe that us being the good guys and not indulging in torture is any sort of protection for anyone. OK so far?

What I DO believe is something that I see as cause and effect, but you dismiss with the "slippery slope" King's X. It is this.

Once America takes such a position, torture won't be the exception any more; it will be the rule. You can count on seeing home made video tapes of our brave men and women being tortured on the evening news. And we won't even be able to complain! We will have voluntarily given up the moral high ground!

To me it is obvious that such a result will be inevitable. You call it a "slippery slope" and refuse to discuss it.

The slippery slope argument is invalid here anyway, as it means that gradually other consequences will occur; I see a direct consequence here, no inbetween steps.

It just seems to me and probably others that you are willing to accept any consequences whatsoever.

Troll

5th March 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by sundog

You continue to misrepresent my point, whether purposely or because you just don't see it. Let me try once more to be very clear.

I have no illusions. I know perfectly well that torture happens when war happens. I don't believe that us being the good guys and not indulging in torture is any sort of protection for anyone. OK so far?

What I DO believe is something that I see as cause and effect, but you dismiss with the "slippery slope" King's X. It is this.

Once America takes such a position, torture won't be the exception any more; it will be the rule. You can count on seeing home made video tapes of our brave men and women being tortured on the evening news. And we won't even be able to complain! We will have voluntarily given up the moral high ground!

To me it is obvious that such a result will be inevitable. You call it a "slippery slope" and refuse to discuss it.

The slippery slope argument is invalid here anyway, as it means that gradually other consequences will occur; I see a direct consequence here, no inbetween steps.

It just seems to me and probably others that you are willing to accept any consequences whatsoever.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the only thing we give up is our right to complain when others torture our own people, as has been done and taped quite a few times before. Is this an accurate assessment?

5th March 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the only thing we give up is our right to complain when others torture our own people, as has been done and taped quite a few times before. Is this an accurate assessment?

Yes, that's what I mean. We could no longer express outrage, because we do it too. The fact that it has been done before is irrelevant to my point.

Troll

5th March 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by sundog

Yes, that's what I mean. We could no longer express outrage, because we do it too. The fact that it has been done before is irrelevant to my point.

Well what has our ability to express outrage in the past about it happening done to prevent it from happening? No offense but if all we're giving up is a right to complain about something I don't see the harm.

If someone launched a nuke at us would be allowed to complain even though we have them, or do we have to disarm completely in order to take the moral high ground about having one dropped on us?

5th March 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Well what has our ability to express outrage in the past about it happening done to prevent it from happening? No offense but if all we're giving up is a right to complain about something I don't see the harm.

You don't see the harm in the greatest nation in the world taking the lead in making torture a commonplace tool of war, and basically saying "Now it's morally right to torture combatants"? In making torture the rule instead of the exception? You don't think that holding the high moral ground is worth anything?

To me, that's a staggering viewpoint. To me, America IS the place that DEFINES the moral high ground. Once we lose that, then who are we? What does America stand for then?

Nothing at all. America will be dead. It's on life support already.

Troll

5th March 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by sundog

You don't see the harm in the greatest nation in the world taking the lead in making torture a commonplace tool of war, and basically saying "Now it's morally right to torture combatants"? In making torture the rule instead of the exception? You don't think that holding the high moral ground is worth anything?

To me, that's a staggering viewpoint. To me, America IS the place that DEFINES the moral high ground. Once we lose that, then who are we? What does America stand for then?

Nothing at all. America will be dead. It's on life support already.

I see the harm in making it common, yes. But I also don't advocate making it a commonplace tool. As it pertains to the military, would I suggest the use of it on the average grunt? No. That would be entirely uncalled for and useless. As I've stated quite often, I view it as a rare device which can be used in extreme cases.

rikzilla

5th March 2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Graham

Again, I have to go but I'll just stay long enough to say that:

a) We are trying to discuss the issues but your ignoring our arguments and saying the same thing over and over again.

I am not ignoring you...the thread was hijacked by Sundog for a while and I played into his hands. If you have an argument that you wish me to comment on post it and I will do my best. If you are against torture let me just say that in most cases I am as well. I do not see my argument as proposing unfettered torture, actually I see my idea as actually working to limit it.

b) I don't think torture is useful, even in the limited circumstances you describe (see above)

You're really going out on a limb with that radical opinion aren't you? :rolleyes: Perhaps it is, and perhaps it isn't. Are you an expert in counterterrorism? Don't you think this question deserves a little better analysis?

c)I don't think these things should be going on in our names and I would like to know what we can do to stop it. Amnesty International - where are you? (AI, btw, are IMHO a bunch of w***ers who'd rather post graphic leaflets through your door for children to find than actually do anything but that's beside the point)

It's not AI's fault that it is only allowed to operate in areas where governments generally do not abuse their citizens. Besides Graham...there is nothing you can do to stop it if there is no one that is even courageous enough to bring this subject up in polite company for public debate!

d) "Living like Cleopatra"? wtf?

..a joke....forget it.

e) "Terrorists don't pay homage to the Geneva conventions" - that's why they're the bad guys and we're the good guys

Again...if torture or targeted assasination are the least evil choices, but are removed from the table since we're the "good guys" then will it be more righteous of us to carpet bomb the village we know Bin Laden is hiding in? Is targeted assasination in the same league as non-lethal torture???

f) "Torture in some cases might actually save thousands of lives" that is so far unsubstaniated in this thread. Even if your pure black and white hypothetical situation ever occured you have failed to show that torutre would resolve the situation satisfactorily.

The purpose of my hypothetical was to see how many people could take a "less evil", but still tragic decision. The answer is not many. I do hope our leaders are not afflicted with this form of moral paralysis. Next time it could be my wife or kid at the top of a bombed skyscraper.

g) But, oh no, we can't think about such things" - I object to that, I have thought about it and I hav posted my opinions, as have others. You have not adequetly addressed our concerns so why should we agree with you?

That comment was for others here...they know who they are.

h) Torturing people is not "an appropriate balance" - for the reasons stated repeatedly above

In your, less than professional, opinion that is.

i) "Will it really take another 9/11 or worse before people here start to face up to just how nasty this WOT is...and is going...to get?" - you see here's the problem, I don't disagree that the WOT is going to get "nasty" (by which I assume you mean torturing suspects), I only disagree that it should.

Then you need to find a way to impose accountability into the system while still making allowances for extraordinary circumstances.

YOu say these things are goingon so we should regulate them. Bank robberies go on every day - should we just pass a law making it legal for certain persons to rob baks on certain occassions, perhaps when they really, really need the money - after all, they're doing it anyway!

:rolleyes: Graham

non-sequitur Graham.

Regards,
-zilla

5th March 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

I am not ignoring you...the thread was hijacked by Sundog for a while and I played into his hands. -zilla

Liar. Others know how to scroll up, even if you don't.

I simply gave you counterpoints that you couldn't respond to... and still haven't.

PixyMisa

5th March 2003, 10:04 AM

No, not that! (http://www.sgtstryker.com/weblog/archives/week_2003_03_02.html#002497)

rikzilla

5th March 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by sundog
[B]

You don't see the harm in the greatest nation in the world taking the lead in making torture a commonplace tool of war, and basically saying "Now it's morally right to torture combatants"? In making torture the rule instead of the exception? You don't think that holding the high moral ground is worth anything?

"Commonplace"???????

Just where has it been advocated on this thread that torture should ever be commonplace? Please cut and paste the quote.

You are attacking a strawman because you have as yet failed to look into Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit....you again use logical fallacy to leverage your weak position.

Stop beating up the poor strawman...give the guy a break! You're TORTURING that straw guy fer christsakes!

:D :p :rolleyes:

5th March 2003, 10:11 AM

Whatever, Rik. :)

I acknowledge that you think it's a slippery-slope argument when I say that soon the practice would be commonplace. I accept that argument, it has some justification.

Wyrd1

5th March 2003, 10:41 AM

L&W saysIf you allow torture, how on earth can you make certain that only the "bad guys" get it? For how long do the "good guy" torturers stay "good guys"?

I'd like to repeat this excellent point before it gets buried too far in the thread.

I am against legalizing any form of torture. IMHO the end never justifies the means.

How many of our troops have died to defend the constitution and the principles on which it was founded and now we want to just flush part of it away to make ourselves feel safer today? I don't know where that kind of thing would lead and I don't want to find out.

Torture is wrong in my opinion and it is always wrong. If a soldier uses it in the field and is discovered he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law under the UCMJ.

Bad evil things always happen in every war but that doesn't make it right. Soldiers torture prisoners but it's wrong. Soldiers murder their enemies when they attempt surrender but it's wrong. Soldiers murder civilians, rape women, and steal private property and it's wrong.

Those things are always wrong and if our way of life is to mean anything in the future it must remain so. We can meet the current terrorist threat on our own terms and if we remain resolved we will succeed. We must never win on their terms.

That's the way they defeat us.

Doctor X

5th March 2003, 11:02 AM

Regarding Cleopatra:

Methinks it implies that thou saileth on the River De Nile. . . .

--J.D.

rikzilla

5th March 2003, 01:08 PM

Amnesty International finally wades into the debate..... (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/05/terror.amnesty.internat/index.html)

What AI doesn't understand is the salient fact that the land known as "Undisclosed Location" has no laws against torture... or anything else for that matter.

The unwillingness of America to even contemplate such evils is leading to more use of the land of "U-L". So morally superior are we that we can plunge our heads beneath the sand and pretend it's all just a bad dream.

UCE is right....Americans are unwilling to face reality. We are hypocrites. I'm sure the good people at AI would be righteously horrified by my solution to this problem....they are content to ineffectually whine as usual without suggesting any compromise in their morally superior stand.

Put your head back under the sand AI.....in the words of the USMC Colonel played by Crazy Jack...."You can't handle the truth!"

-zilla

billydkid

5th March 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Excellent post.
Who is the bad or good guy is subjective. We always assume that we are the good guys, so any action, decision or method that we apply to achieve our objectives are always going to be correct.

It is difficult to live in a world like this.

Q-S

I simply disagree. That is precisely my point. I don't believe in many, many cases, who is the good guy and who is the bad guy is subjective. I used the example of the Saudi's stoning adultering women - in that respect and many others their's is a bad culture in comparison to that of the US. I believe in the rule of law. I think a person charged with a crime is innocent until proven otherwise, however, I take exception with those who are apologists those who do, in fact, commit crimes (in my definition a crime must involve a victim. I think the term "victimless crime" is an oxymoron.)

Another point, no matter how well intentioned we as a nation may be we will at times be in a position where we will have to make a "Sophie's choice", so to speak. I wish it wasn't that way. I wish the world was perfect and predictable, but it is not. Just as there are very good people there are also very evil people. Most of us exist somewhere in between, but are not merely blank slates.

Actually, I feel strange arguing from this position, because I believe we should be a nation of principles and we should adhere to those principles and once we start not doing that, we lose our identity. It is clear that, throughout our short history we have failed to do that on many ocassions - the treatment of Japanese American's during the Second World War for one example among many.

But given a hypothetical situation, where lives are reasonably believed to be immediately at stake and where saving those lives would involve torturing an individual, I would have to be more flexible. Should the law empower the government to torture individuals? No. But are there no special circumstances? Really, can you imagine none? Would you murder someone to prevent the from murdering someone you love? Would you not transgress that law in violation of your principles? I would and willingly pay the price for it in that circumstance.

If I were a police officer and I had a "suspect" in custody whom I knew had planted a bomb on a school bus full of children that was going to explode in 5 minutes unless a certain code was entered, would I do absolutely anything I could think of to get that code? You bet I would. No, I would not want my government to have the legal power to torture people. But I would want people in power who are willing to transgress the law and pay the price for that transgression were they put in such untenable situations.

fishbob

5th March 2003, 04:16 PM

Rik sez: Terrorists don't pay homage to the Geneva conventions. They murder, torture, rape, with no remorse and abide by no law. When one of our soldiers was captured by al Qaida at the battle of Tora Bora he was literally torn limb from limb. Protection from torture for our soldiers...or even our civilians (Daniel Pearl)...is a fable that you may believe in Sundog, but you're fooling yourself just like our Christian friends fool themselves about the big guy in the sky. The point is that we, our allies, the war crimes courts, or some international bounty hunter type can legitimately go after those bad guys. If we stoop to their level, then there is no internationally recognized justification for us to track the bad guys down. What was expedient in the short term becomes a real burden in the long run.

We can't protect our people from the really bad guys, but we can eventually get the bad guys if we are the good guys. We are the good guys only if we behave like good guys. I want those criminals caught and removed from the world. I don't want to become just like them to do it.

Br000chie

5th March 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by fishbob
We can't protect our people from the really bad guys, but we can eventually get the bad guys if we are the good guys. We are the good guys only if we behave like good guys. I want those criminals caught and removed from the world. I don't want to become just like them to do it.

Posted just because i wanted to echo this thought.

rikzilla

5th March 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by fishbob
Rik sez: The point is that we, our allies, the war crimes courts, or some international bounty hunter type can legitimately go after those bad guys. If we stoop to their level, then there is no internationally recognized justification for us to track the bad guys down. What was expedient in the short term becomes a real burden in the long run.

We can't protect our people from the really bad guys, but we can eventually get the bad guys if we are the good guys. We are the good guys only if we behave like good guys. I want those criminals caught and removed from the world. I don't want to become just like them to do it.

This is the comfortable myth that you guys so love to believe in. Listen to me carefully. We are very likely currently torturing the just captured KSM at an "undisclosed location". We are likely having surrogates do it...but we are still controlling the fact of the likely torture itself. This makes us not only unaccountable torturers...we get the added value of being willing hypocrites as well. So much for your attempt to remain a "good guy". Perhaps "officially" you can maintain that you are...but in fact you are not. WE are not.

The dialog I advocate would result in the limited use of torture under very narrow circumstances and involve no descent into hypocrisy. If in our dialog we proclaimed what so many of you do...that we are above such actions...then let us say so out loud in front of the world and back up our convictions by bringing these accused into the USA and trying them under existing criminal or military law. (I suggest military law to be more appropriate)

Then not only will we limit the fact of torture...we will eliminate the fact of American hypocrisy in this issue. It is in the act of seeking the symbolic moral high ground were you are betraying the legendary American values of openess,...honesty,....and freedom.

-zilla

fishbob

5th March 2003, 08:25 PM

Rik sez:We are very likely currently torturing the just captured KSM at an "undisclosed location". We are likely having surrogates do it...but we are still controlling the fact of the likely torture itself. This makes us not only unaccountable torturers...we get the added value of being willing hypocrites as well. My point is we should not be doing this. Our military or political leaders are not supposed to allow this. If they do allow this, they should be removed from their positions.

Graham

6th March 2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by fishbob
Rik sez: My point is we should not be doing this. Our military or political leaders are not supposed to allow this. If they do allow this, they should be removed from their positions.

This was my point too. Any person engaged intorture on behalf of the United States at this point in time or responsible for instructing, even tacitly, a third party state to carry out torture on your behalf is breaking both your own domestic laws and international law.

Rik, you say:

This is the comfortable myth that you guys so love to believe in. Listen to me carefully. We are very likely currently torturing the just captured KSM at an "undisclosed location". We are likely having surrogates do it...but we are still controlling the fact of the likely torture itself. This makes us not only unaccountable torturers...we get the added value of being willing hypocrites as well. So much for your attempt to remain a "good guy". Perhaps "officially" you can maintain that you are...but in fact you are not. WE are not.

I don't doubt that you are correct. The WOT has produced an atmosphere where the most heinous infractions of civillised behaviour are being practiced by the very people who should be fighting against them.

You appear to be proposing that there are only two options here:

1) Carry out torture "undiclosed location" style, that is unaccountably and usually through third parties

or

2) Regulate torture and make the torturers answerable to the "justice" system

Well, I would maintain that this is a false dichotomy and that there is at least one other option:

3) Stand up for what we believe in and utterly repudiate the practice of torture altogether. There's nothing hypocritical about that, there's nothing cowardly about it either, IMO.

Graham

PS - I did do some limited research on torture and collected a dozen links for examination but when I clicked "post reply" I got a damned error message and they were all gone :(

I'll look them up again today.

Graham

6th March 2003, 06:25 AM

OK, my second attempt at posting som ebackground information to this thread.

Incidentally, if you ever feel the urge to put the word torture into a search engine - make sure you explain to your wife exactly why you're doing it. You can end up with some pretty racy (and graphic) hits that look deeply, deeply suspicious in your history file! ;)

Anyhoo:

Article from the Washington Post about what the US supposedly is already doing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A37943-2002Dec25&notFound=true)

"If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job," said one official who has supervised the capture and transfer of accused terrorists.

More on the same subject form The Guardian (http://www.dalycitygreens.org/torture.html)

techniques such as sleep deprivation and shining harsh lights at detainees which, Mr Madsen labels "torture lite".

An interesting, IMO, article: Does Torture Work? (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20020429.asp)

Despite the considerable skills of the communist interrogators, they were not always able to get the information, or confessions, they wanted. World War II saw an enormous amount of torture. The Nazis, who openly admired the superior interrogation skills of the Soviets, were more prone to use poorly trained investigators who went to physical torture quickly. The results were often dismal. Thousands of Russian and Allied victims took their secrets to their (usually unmarked) graves. The Soviets proved that, if you have the time (weeks or months) and skilled interrogators, you can break just about anyone. As for the few who resisted everything, a bullet in the back of the head was the usual result. The Soviet interrogators were not good losers.

Supposed extracts from "declassified" US Training Manuals (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/SOA/SOA_TortureManuals.html)

While the excerpts released by the Pentagon to the press are a useful and not misleading selection of the most egregious passages-the ones most clearly advocating torture, execution, and blackmail-they do not reveal the manuals' highly objectionable framework. In the name of defending democracy, the manuals advocate profoundly undemocratic methods.

A well-drafted "open letter" to Colin Powell (http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/02/powell-ltr020303.htm)

Can anyone confirm that is correct?

In his State of the Union address, President Bush described with appropriate horror some of the torture techniques reportedly used by Saddam Hussein's government: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. He rightly said that "if this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture (http://www.icomm.ca/ccvt/tort-ov.html)

While torture may be used to obtain information or signed confessions, this is not its primary purpose. Signing such confessions seldom leads to relief or release. Torture is directed towards instilling and reinforcing a sense of powerlessness and terror in victims and the societies in which they live. It is a process which generates a situation designed to destroy the physical and psychological capabilities of survivors to function as viable individuals.

This is interesting (and horrific), if true (http://www.clearharmony.net/articles/200205/4603.html)

Nine months have passed since July 2001 when Cangzhou City police arrested Mr. Cheng during a truth clarification effort. Police used various torture techniques on him. For instance, he was tied to a Tiger Bench for eight days and eight nights, during which he was also deprived of sleep. The police would shock him with electric batons and dig into his ribs with their fingernails. All these tortures achieved nothing. Mr. Cheng Rulin did not speak a word that the police wanted to hear.

This article goes into some detail about the French experience of torture in Algeria (http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/253614.html)

"Anybody with real combat experience understands that torture is counterproductive," says F. Andy Messing, a retired major in the U.S. Special Forces and a conservative leader with the ear of the president. "It is a downhill slope if you engage in it. Everyplace it has been used that I have studied — the French were big for it in Algeria — it comes back and bites you." And, it seems, keeps biting.

"My concern," he wrote to a friend in October 2000 in a letter made available to Insight, "is that our new focus will delude us into using the same torture techniques the French used to get enough intelligence to keep Algiers and other population centers under control. I think we must consider that now, before we confront this situation. As the French found out, the early successes of torture producing information did not endure. We must stay out of this attractive trap."

I have probably been somewhat biased in my selection of quotations but if you read the linked articles and do further research, I think you'll find plenty of relevant information.

It seems, actually that details of French operations in Algeria might be particularly relevant to our current situation. If I have time I will therefore try to find more information specific to that.

Bye for now,

Graham

rikzilla

6th March 2003, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Graham

Well, I would maintain that this is a false dichotomy and that there is at least one other option:

3) Stand up for what we believe in and utterly repudiate the practice of torture altogether. There's nothing hypocritical about that, there's nothing cowardly about it either, IMO.

Graham

Does this mean that you will be lodging your complaint with the Human Rights Ministry of the nation of "Undisclosed Location"? (Makes me wonder what the flag would look like....a big white question mark on a black field maybe???) Fact is you have no forum under the current paradigm. Complain as you will...you will only ever be able to proclaim your suspicions. Suspicions that the government will logically claim to be "baseless speculation".

Originally posted by Graham
Incidentally, if you ever feel the urge to put the word torture into a search engine - make sure you explain to your wife exactly why you're doing it. You can end up with some pretty racy (and graphic) hits that look deeply, deeply suspicious in your history file!

:D :D Hadn't thought of that one! :D Good Luck! Maybe she'll see something she likes in there! ;)

I have probably been somewhat biased in my selection of quotations but if you read the linked articles and do further research, I think you'll find plenty of relevant information.

It seems, actually that details of French operations in Algeria might be particularly relevant to our current situation. If I have time I will therefore try to find more information specific to that.

Bye for now,

Graham

No...it's good info. There's certainly no shame in being biased against torture!

French use of torture in Algeria is a really good analog to what may be happening now. I've read something about it in the past...I'm trying to figure out where to look it back up now...will post it later...

-zilla

Graham

6th March 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla

Does this mean that you will be lodging your complaint with the Human Rights Ministry of the nation of "Undisclosed Location"? (Makes me wonder what the flag would look like....a big white question mark on a black field maybe???) Fact is you have no forum under the current paradigm. Complain as you will...you will only ever be able to proclaim your suspicions. Suspicions that the government will logically claim to be "baseless speculation".

But again you're suggesting that just because it is apparently already going on in our name we should legalise it because otherwise we're being hypocritical.

Now you might say that we are giving implicit consent to this activity by not doing anything about it but you are also now saying that we can't do anything about it because the government will simply deny it. :confused:

"Undisclosed Location" as you describe it is an anathema to the most basic principles of democracy. The laws of your country, your constitution and international law both make torture illegal. The law and/or the constitution, supposedly at least, represent the will of the people. In whose name, then, are your government carrying out this torture?

If torture is already going on, IMO case evidence should be gathered and the persons responsible prosecuted.

:D :D Hadn't thought of that one! :D Good Luck! Maybe she'll see something she likes in there! ;)

I hope not! Parent/tacher meetings and carol services are torture enough for me. :D

No...it's good info. There's certainly no shame in being biased against torture!

French use of torture in Algeria is a really good analog to what may be happening now. I've read something about it in the past...I'm trying to figure out where to look it back up now...will post it later...

-zilla

Most of the articles I've found were in French and unfortunately what little I learned in high school has somehow reduced itself to "Fetchez la vache" ;)

The General whose book was largely responsible for bringing the issue into the spotlight was called Paul Aussaresses. He has never, ASFAIK, admited to any regret about his actions in Algeria though I'd only recommend reading the details if you have a strong stomach.

The delightful Jean Marie Le Pen, is another proud product of the Algerian Not-A-War, btw. By all accounts, it's not a situation any country should want to create for themselves though how much the use of torture contributed to the "nastiness" of the conflict, the eventual outcome and the continuing reprecussions is, of course, debateable.

Graham

rikzilla

6th March 2003, 07:51 AM

In 1678, the French writer Francois da la Rochefoucauld said that "Hypocrisy is the homage that vice renders to virtue."
(a new sig line??) ;)

In this case we have two vices: Terrorism, and Torture. We also have two virtues: Civil liberties, and Democratic accountability. Most "civil libertarians" represented in this thread prefer hypocrisy, simply because it appears to avoid the conflict between security and civil liberties, but by choosing the way of the hypocrite these guys who posted here...(you seem to be on the fence a little) ...compromise the value of democratic accountability. Such is the nature of tragic choices in a complex world. Government, Graham, is and always has been a choice of evils. In a democracy those choices should and IMHO must be made with openess and subject to the rule of law. If laws must be changed to reflect this reality then so be it.

-zilla

Flo

6th March 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Graham

Most of the articles I've found were in French and unfortunately what little I learned in high school has somehow reduced itself to "Fetchez la vache" ;)

Post your links, I'll try to translate some of it.

BTW, if any of the moderators have enough command of the French language to understand "fetchez la vache", you should be reprimanded :D

The General whose book was largely responsible for bringing the issue into the spotlight was called Paul Aussaresses. He has never, ASFAIK, admited to any regret about his actions in Algeria though I'd only recommend reading the details if you have a strong stomach.

The delightful Jean Marie Le Pen, is another proud product of the Algerian Not-A-War, btw. By all accounts, it's not a situation any country should want to create for themselves though how much the use of torture contributed to the "nastiness" of the conflict, the eventual outcome and the continuing reprecussions is, of course, debateable.

Graham

The repercussions of torture in Algeria are still felt in France, at individual and collective level. As you pointed out, most prominent members of the extreme right in France have been practicing or justifying torture in Algeria. Many of the main torturers had already practiced their "talents" in Vietnam, and some even in France with the nazis ... :mad:

It is to be noted that during the "not-a-war" (the government has recently admitted it was in fact a war, to the immense satisfaction of Algeria), the use of torture hasn't prevented terrorism, either in Algeria or in France.

Graham

6th March 2003, 08:15 AM

In this case we have two vices: Terrorism, and Torture. We also have two virtues: Civil liberties, and Democratic accountability. Most "civil libertarians" represented in this thread prefer hypocrisy, simply because it appears to avoid the conflict between security and civil liberties, but by choosing the way of the hypocrite these guys who posted here...(you seem to be on the fence a little) ...compromise the value of democratic accountability. Such is the nature of tragic choices in a complex world.

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being dense but I don't follow you.

We have Terrorism and Torture, which are both vices and therefore undesirable.

We have Civil Liberties and Democratic Accountability, which are virtues and therefore desireable.

I choose demanding democratic accountability (a virtue) over condoning torture (a vice)

I choose civil liberties (the right not to be tortured because someone suspects you might have done something or, worse still to my mind, suspects that you might have information about something that might be going to happen).

I'm not really on the fence at all, I have a very firm position: torture is bad, it's not productive, it's often counter-productive and history has shown it to be the first step on a very slippery slope.

Government, Graham, is and always has been a choice of evils. In a democracy those choices should and IMHO must be made with openess and subject to the rule of law.

This I agree with. The choice to torture people, however, if it has already been made by your government, has not been made with openess and subject to the rule of law.

If laws must be changed to reflect this reality then so be it

I suspect Hal and possibly Ed would agree with you on this point but perhaps not Win! ;)

I'm not a believer in the "set in stone" theory. I think laws should be revised on a regular basis because tiems do change. However, I do not agree that simply because a law is being openly flouted by those who are charged with maintaining it, the law should be changed to accomodate them.

BTW, IIRC La Rochefoucauld was possibly the ultimate cynic and believed that all human action derives ultimately from selfishness. IMO, your postion that torture should be introduced for it's supposed immediate benefits for you and yours whilst refusing to discuss the immediate consequnces for others (the subjects of torture) long term consequences for yourself (should you ever be unfortunate enough to be suspected of something.

:p Graham

Wyrd1

6th March 2003, 08:40 AM

If laws must be changed to reflect this reality then so be it.

Changing Laws won't work. Torture is a clear violation of the United States Constitution and would require a new amendment to allow it.

If anyone knows of torture being conducted by any person in the United States Military or any member that has done it give me their names and any witnesses and I'll turn them in. Those people don't deserve to wear the uniform of any of the armed forces in my opinion. I do believe a Courts Martial would agree with me.

rikzilla

6th March 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Graham

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being dense but I don't follow you.

eh?

We have Terrorism and Torture, which are both vices and therefore undesirable.

We have Civil Liberties and Democratic Accountability, which are virtues and therefore desireable.

I choose demanding democratic accountability (a virtue) over condoning torture (a vice)

So that's why you have chosen hypocrisy! You get to have your cake and eat it too! I see...a very desireable outcome. How simple, I should have seen it before now! :rolleyes:

I choose civil liberties (the right not to be tortured because someone suspects you might have done something or, worse still to my mind, suspects that you might have information about something that might be going to happen).

However, if you are taken to the capitol of "Undisclosed Location" please explain to me what recourse you will have? What embassy of the "U-L" can your family appeal for your release??

I'm not really on the fence at all, I have a very firm position: torture is bad, it's not productive, it's often counter-productive and history has shown it to be the first step on a very slippery slope.

...and governments never have to make tragic choices....and other fables and myths of the terminally liberal. :rolleyes:

Lets be rational for a moment. You speculate that torture is never useful...under any circumstances...but we can all quite easily imagine circumstances where it may well be useful. It's not hard.

On a purely rational basis isn't it far worse to shoot a fleeing felon in the back and kill him...yet every civilized society authorizes their police to shoot a suspect who poses danger of committing violent crimes against the public. So please tell me why it is more moral to kill the fleeing suspect...than it is to non-lethally torture the known terrorist?? I eagerly await your response. ;)

This I agree with. The choice to torture people, however, if it has already been made by your government, has not been made with openess and subject to the rule of law.

But alas you are not even willing to have the public debate necessary to change this fact. This makes you hypocritical.

I suspect Hal and possibly Ed would agree with you on this point but perhaps not Win! ;)

I'm not a believer in the "set in stone" theory. I think laws should be revised on a regular basis because tiems do change. However, I do not agree that simply because a law is being openly flouted by those who are charged with maintaining it, the law should be changed to accomodate them.

A law could be enacted...with limited provisions for torture under extremely limited and defined circumstances...the law could have a "sunset" provision which would insure that it must be reviewed and re-voted in...or it would expire. Today...in "U-L" there are no limitations. No expiration date. I think this situation is precisely to the liking of the Bush admin at this time. On this issue, liberal hypocrisy is his best friend and enabler.

BTW, IIRC La Rochefoucauld was possibly the ultimate cynic and believed that all human action derives ultimately from selfishness.

Really? Interesting...I guess I share that trait with him.

IMO, your postion that torture should be introduced for it's supposed immediate benefits for you and yours whilst refusing to discuss the immediate consequnces for others (the subjects of torture) long term consequences for yourself (should you ever be unfortunate enough to be suspected of something.

You are far more likely to get shot accidentally by police. Personally I'd rather endure non-lethal legal limited torture than get killed. But that's just me.
:p
-zilla

rikzilla

6th March 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Wyrd1

Changing Laws won't work. Torture is a clear violation of the United States Constitution and would require a new amendment to allow it.

If anyone knows of torture being conducted by any person in the United States Military or any member that has done it give me their names and any witnesses and I'll turn them in. Those people don't deserve to wear the uniform of any of the armed forces in my opinion. I do believe a Courts Martial would agree with me.

An example of the la-la land mentality of the terminally liberal!

The torturers don't wear any of those uniforms. They are surrogates. Where they come from everything they say is legal is legal. Report them all you want. Address your complaint to the:
"Ministry of Torture and dirty tricks"
123 Main Street
Capitol City, U-L

I suspect your complaints will be greeted with the same seriousness accorded a UN resolution by Iraq.

-zilla

rikzilla

6th March 2003, 09:35 AM

BTW...Torture has actually been shown to work in a variety of cases. Israel has a proceedure by which what has been termed "harsh interrogation" can be used on a limited basis by police/military in case of a terrorist who has knowledge needed to save lives of targets.

Interestingly in footnote #40 of Dershowitz's "Why Terrorism Works" (chapter 4) it states:
"When it is known that torture is a possible option, terrorists sometimes provide the information and then claim they have been tortured, in order to be able to justify their complicity to their colleagues."

-zilla

Jedi Knight

6th March 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Wyrd1

Changing Laws won't work. Torture is a clear violation of the United States Constitution and would require a new amendment to allow it.

If anyone knows of torture being conducted by any person in the United States Military or any member that has done it give me their names and any witnesses and I'll turn them in. Those people don't deserve to wear the uniform of any of the armed forces in my opinion. I do believe a Courts Martial would agree with me.

I would imagine that all torture would take place in another country using the laws of the other country and shadowy cloak and dagger types lol.

It is a tough subject to think about but there is a different standard for radical combatants. Non-lethal coercion may become a necessary tool to protect the nation-state when dealing with these religious Islamofascist fanatic terrorists. I agree with Dershowitz's writings on the matter.

JK

Jedi Knight

6th March 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by fishbob
Rik sez: My point is we should not be doing this. Our military or political leaders are not supposed to allow this. If they do allow this, they should be removed from their positions.

Not allowed to do what--engage the enemies of the United States? That is what they are paid to do.

There seems to be a major misunderstanding about what status these combatants have. They do not have constitutional protection. They fall under the categories of the laws of war. The reason they fall under the categories of the laws of war is because they are enemy combatants.

War is not nice. The enemies of the United States are learning that.

JK

Wyrd1

6th March 2003, 11:46 AM

An example of the la-la land mentality of the terminally liberal!

Thanks for labelling me and then insulting me. You will note that I have not either labelled you nor insulted you at any point. I point out out that it requires a constitutional amendment to allow torture to attain any sort of legal recognition in this country. Torture is currently against the law. Anyone doing so is a criminal. How is any of this a liberal statement?

If you have tortured anyone you are a criminal. That's a statement of fact not subject to any interpretation. It isn't a liberal opinion or a conservative one.

fishbob

6th March 2003, 02:07 PM

There seems to be a major misunderstanding about what status these combatants have. They do not have constitutional protection. They fall under the categories of the laws of war. The reason they fall under the categories of the laws of war is because they are enemy combatants. It matters little who the enemy combatants are. What matters is what we do and what we allow to be done.

Graham

6th March 2003, 02:14 PM

eh?

You weren't making any sense is what I was trying to say ;)

So that's why you have chosen hypocrisy! You get to have your cake and eat it too! I see...a very desireable outcome. How simple, I should have seen it before now! :rolleyes:

No, I don't want torture being used as an interrogation method or as a deterrent or for any other reason. If I could stop it being done in this place you keep referring to as "undisclosed location" I would.

Let me repeat myself: "Undisclosed location" is anathemic (s that a word?) to all that a civilised, democratic country should be. If you have certain knowledge that this is going on you should be trying to stop it not promote it.

...and governments never have to make tragic choices....and other fables and myths of the terminally liberal. :rolleyes:

What does that have to do with anything? I feel like I should resent the label "terminally liberal, btw, though I'm not entirely sure why given that it apparently means I try to stand up for the values I believe in. You, on the other hand, want to have your cake and eat it. You want to be the good guybut be able to torture people and commit genocide and whatever else you thinkn is "neccessary". You want to live in a democratic society, want to have all the advantages of civilisdation and yet want to behave like a rampaging barbarian.

Lets be rational for a moment. You speculate that torture is never useful...under any circumstances...but we can all quite easily imagine circumstances where it may well be useful. It's not hard.

Can we be rational - it would be a refief, even for a moment. We can all imagine circumstances where it would be useful - imagine being the key word.

Real world circumstances where it is truly usefulare rather more hard to come by, unless you mean useful as a tool for intimidation and terror, in which case, yes, it is useful.

On a purely rational basis isn't it far worse to shoot a fleeing felon in the back and kill him...yet every civilized society authorizes their police to shoot a suspect who poses danger of committing violent crimes against the public. So please tell me why it is more moral to kill the fleeing suspect...than it is to non-lethally torture the known terrorist?? I eagerly await your response. ;)

It is, as you said previously, apples and oranges. However, IMO, this is the best argument you've produced so far on this thread - well done ;)

It's a tricky one to answer. Personally, I'm not particularly in favour of police shooting people (in this country our police are unarmed, btw) however, I recognise that occasionally it is necessary.

I'm sure you are familiar with the term "cruel and unusual" and the difference between a policeman bringing down a fleeing axe murderer in a split second decision and painfully torturing somebody for a prolonged period.

Further, the effect and value of allowing police to shoot criminals rather than let them get away is immediately obvious. The effect and value of torture - not so much obvious to me.

But alas you are not even willing to have the public debate necessary to change this fact. This makes you hypocritical.

I'm sorry - is this not a public debate? Is Franko right and you're not actually real? Am I talking to myself? :p

A law could be enacted...with limited provisions for torture under extremely limited and defined circumstances...the law could have a "sunset" provision which would insure that it must be reviewed and re-voted in...or it would expire. Today...in "U-L" there are no limitations. No expiration date. I think this situation is precisely to the liking of the Bush admin at this time. On this issue, liberal hypocrisy is his best friend and enabler.

The situation probably is to the liking of the Bush administration - are you invoking them in order to make the concept more appealing to me, 'cos I gotta tell you it ain't working.

I don't think "Undiclosed Location" should exist

I don't think "we" should be handing suspects over to less scrupilous third party nations

I don't think torture, directly or by proxy, should be the stated policy of any nation that wishes to consider itself civilised

I'm not torturing suspects, I'm not handing them over to torturing nations, I'm not endorsing the people who do, in any way

Does the fact that I am powerless to stop them make me complicit in their actions? If not, I simply don't see how you can say I'm being hypocritical.

Graham

Jedi Knight

6th March 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by fishbob
It matters little who the enemy combatants are. What matters is what we do and what we allow to be done.

No way. It is very important to know who the combatants are. There is no moral relativism in war. The United States system of governance is not the same as the Taliban's system of governance. They are remarkably different. One was terror (the Taliban) and one is freedom (The United States).

The leftist media and leftist intellectuals who have dogma issues against America may try to blur that somewhat and try to apply a moral relativism to the response the US has to terrorism, but that is an sophomoric unreality.

JK

Graham

6th March 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

No way. It is very important to know who the combatants are. There is no moral relativism in war. The United States system of governance is not the same as the Taliban's system of governance. They are remarkably different. One was terror (the Taliban) and one is freedom (The United States).

The leftist media and leftist intellectuals who have dogma issues against America may try to blur that somewhat and try to apply a moral relativism to the response the US has to terrorism, but that is an sophomoric unreality.

JK

Now see I agree 100% with your first paragraph here (though the second makes you sound a bit paranoid or possibly just crazy - an sophmoric unreality?what does that even mean? :confused: )

Anyway, ask yourself: what are the differences between the two systems that make the American system better?

Then tell me whether you think that torturing suspects in undiclosed locations and denying prisoners of war even the most basic of human rights moves us closer to ro further from the Taliban system of governence (terror, btw in case you'd forgotten!)

Do you even see what I'm trying to say?

Graham

Jedi Knight

6th March 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Graham

Now see I agree 100% with your first paragraph here (though the second makes you sound a bit paranoid or possibly just crazy - an sophmoric unreality?what does that even mean? :confused: )

Anyway, ask yourself: what are the differences between the two systems that make the American system better?

Then tell me whether you think that torturing suspects in undiclosed locations and denying prisoners of war even the most basic of human rights moves us closer to ro further from the Taliban system of governence (terror, btw in case you'd forgotten!)

Do you even see what I'm trying to say?

Graham

You are thinking of these people as common criminals that steal a loaf of bread because they are hungry and get caught and are given a week in jail (with HBO, a gymnasium, etc).

That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about terrorists. I am talking about people that are terrorists who would kill you, your family, and anyone that you ever loved just to advance their agenda even marginally. These people would put your entire family on roasting racks and cook them alive slowly and then feed them to wild dog packs if they could get 2 minutes of TV time in exchange to air out their perversionist agenda.

The only way that you can deal with monsters is on their level. You do not bring them to your country so they get lawyers at tax-payer expense. You do not negotiate with them. You do no give them mercy. You extract the information that you need from them to help in going after their fellow terrorist members and then you give them a military trial because they are combatants.

Then you send them to a firing squad, throw them into a pit and dump a bag of lime on them. That is how you deal with terrorists.

JK

Leif Roar

7th March 2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

You are thinking of these people as common criminals that steal a loaf of bread because they are hungry and get caught and are given a week in jail (with HBO, a gymnasium, etc).

That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about terrorists.

And who is going to decide wether a given arrestant is a terrorist, a criminal or an enemy soldier? The individual soldier or police constable? The captain? The local CIA representative? The President?

And, while we're discussing the subject, just what is a terrorist anyway? If you want to remove civil rights from terrorists, you better have a darned clear and solid definition to discriminate by. Otherwise you'll end up with various levels of "Heck, he looked like a terrorist to me."

I am talking about people that are terrorists who would kill you, your family, and anyone that you ever loved just to advance their agenda even marginally. These people would put your entire family on roasting racks and cook them alive slowly and then feed them to wild dog packs if they could get 2 minutes of TV time in exchange to air out their perversionist agenda.

The only way that you can deal with monsters is on their level.

I strongly disagree. This smacks of "We had to destroy the village to save it." - not only do I not believe that it's impossible to fight terrorism efficently without resorting to the terrorist's own methods; but I feel that if the only way to defeat evil is to become evil, then it is better to fight the good fight and be destroyed.

You do not bring them to your country so they get lawyers at tax-payer expense. You do not negotiate with them. You do no give them mercy. You extract the information that you need from them to help in going after their fellow terrorist members and then you give them a military trial because they are combatants.

In which case they should be treated as combatants. You can't have it both way - either they are legitimate combatants, and have the rights of legitimate combatants, or they are civilian criminals and have the rights of civilians.

Then you send them to a firing squad, throw them into a pit and dump a bag of lime on them. That is how you deal with terrorists.

JK

And when China, Saudi Arabia or North Korea announces that they've just killed three dozens terrorists each, you pat them on the back and say "Well done."

The legal system is, in enlightened countries, in place to protect people from wrongful convictions, excesses of the state and abuse of power - wether the crime they are accused of is terrorism, murder or jay-walking. The sort of kangaroo court you seem to be in favour of would not just be inflicted on the guilty - even when given due process of law, sometimes innocent people are convicted.
Furthermore, all history instructs us that there must be checks and controls on power, or it will be abused. Under the system you speak in favor of, the label terrorist would be enough to deprive you of your civil rights - without due process, how would the public be able to ascertain wether an executed "terrorist" was in fact a terrorist, or had just stolen the local political officer's girlfriend? How do you know that the Taliban and Al-Quada prisoners in Cuba have been involved in acts of terrorism? Your government says so; that's all you've got.

subgenius

7th March 2003, 11:57 AM

Rather than start a new thread, I guess the debate is moot:
We already torture people, and have now admitted killing two that way.
"America admits suspects died in interrogations
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 March 2003

American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.

A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.

The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury".

US officials previously admitted using "stress and duress" on prisoners including sleep deprivation, denial of medication for battle injuries, forcing them to stand or kneel for hours on end with hoods on, subjecting them to loud noises and sudden flashes of light and engaging in culturally humiliating practices such as having them kicked by female officers.

While the US claims this still constitutes "humane" treatment, human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced it as torture as defined by international treaty."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=384604