Would you say yes to torture if OBL was caught?

[Pardalis]

The thread about OBL's alledged death made me think of starting this poll.

I would say definately yes.

ETA: torture for extracting information only.

[KelvinG]

What's the context? Using torture to extract information, or just for the fun of giving him a taste of his own medicine?

Or both?

[Pauliesonne]

Make him suffer.

[Pardalis]

What's the context? Using torture to extract information, or just for the fun of giving him a taste of his own medicine?

Or both?

For extracting information of course.

ETA: I've clarified the OP

[fishbob]

No Hell No.

Although I do think that proponents of this juvenile idiocy need a good spanking.

[KelvinG]

For extracting information of course.

Well, legal systems in civilized countries don't allow torture for citizens who are in custody, no matter how vital the information they are trying to extract is.
Thus, I don't support torture in the case of Bin Laden for the same reasons. I know that some will propose all sorts of reasons why the circumstances are different, but I think what makes western democracies special is the realization that all people are afforded certain rights, no matter how vile the crimes they've committed.

But, if a person does feel torture is OK in such a case, care to define exactly what methods of torture would be acceptable, and how far they can be carried? i.e. to the point of death?

[bob_kark]

In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear—whether it is true or false—if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.

McCain's Newsweek Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/)

I'd say its worth a read.

[Dragonrock]

I say we give every 9/11 family member 30 seconds alone with him.

[Huntster]

No torture needed or justified.

Just shoot the bastard.

[KelvinG]

No torture needed or justified.

Just shoot the bastard.

Bin Laden strikes me as a "never be taken alive" kind of guy, so if he isn't killed directly by opposing forces, I suspect he'd take his own life.
Cause of course, he's got them 72 virgins waiting for him.

[Ziggurat]

McCain's Newsweek Article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/)

I'd say its worth a read.

McCain is not, contrary to what he would have you think, any kind of expert at interrogation techniques. The North Vietnamese were brutal thugs, and they tortured him primarily for their own satisfaction, not in order to extract usable intelligence. It was cruel and barbaric treatment, sure, but it was ALSO crude and unsophisticated.

For example, ever heard of Truth Serum, aka Sodium Pentothal? Ever wonder why it got that name?

Sodium Pentothal is a barbituate, and it lowers inhibitions. But it does not force people to tell the truth: there isn't anything about that drug which makes lying harder to do. But there IS one thing else it does do: just like alcohol, memories don't form well while under the influence. If a person is interrogated while under the influence, they will not subseqeuntly remember much, if anything, of what they said during the interrogation. During subsequent interrogations, the subject is asked to repeat their answers from a previous session. If you don't KNOW what you said last time, how do you respond? Well, there's really only one safe way to respond, particularly if there's a strong incentive offered (such as torture): tell the truth. It's very hard to repeat the same lie, especially in great detail, if you don't know what lie you told last time and what details you had to invent on the spot. That's how "truth serum" works. But it takes some sophistication, and repetition, to do right. And nothing McCain encountered comes close.

Pretending that torture never works is an easy out: it lets you make what appears to be a cost-free moral decision. But the fact is, torture really can work. 100% success has never been the standard in intelligence. And because it CAN work, the decision to refrain from using it is NOT cost free, any more than the decision to use it is. It may be the right decision never to use torture, but that decision may also lead to innocent people getting killed because we did not get information we could have from terrorists. We do ourselves no favors by pretending that the moral question before us is trivial, because it is not.

[Huntster]

Bin Laden strikes me as a "never be taken alive" kind of guy, so if he isn't killed directly by opposing forces, I suspect he'd take his own life.
Cause of course, he's got them 72 virgins waiting for him.

Maybe.

But maybe not.

Look at that big, bad Saddam. Tough guy. Wearing his pistol at public speeches (imagine the howl if GW Bush wore a pistol to a speech). Shooting the damned thing in the air around a crowd. Arab-style "machismo" (what do they call that there?).

Found the scumbag hiding in a hole in the ground on a farm.

I thought at the time that it was great they'd put the shytbag on trial. Now, with the way the trial is going, maybe that wasn't such a great deal.

They should have shot his ass, then thrown dirt in on the hole on top of him.........

[Bjorn]

If you would torture Bin Laden, is it limited to him or would you also torture his second in command (one of the many), third in command, or his relatives? All for extracting information, of course.

[Soapy Sam]

Put him on Larry King Live with Sylvia Brown, discussing spirituality.

Or would that be cruel and unusual.

[Huntster]

McCain is not, contrary to what he would have you think, any kind of expert at interrogation techniques. The North Vietnamese were brutal thugs, and they tortured him primarily for their own satisfaction, not in order to extract usable intelligence......

McCain was special:

When the North Vietnamese discovered his father was the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, (CINCPAC), in charge of all US forces in Vietnam, he was offered a chance to go home, in an effort to embarrass the American military. Senior POWs had ordered there would be no return home unless all POWs were permitted to, and McCain, as did most POWs, followed orders, and refused to be repatriated back to the United States.

McCain signed an anti-American propaganda message which was written in Vietnamese, but did so only as a result of torture (to this day, he cannot raise his arms above his head, due to his two broken shoulders from the severe beatings administered by the North Vietnamese). It is that period during his capture that he most regrets. After McCain signed the initial statement, the Vietnamese decided they could not use it. They tried to force him to sign a second statement. This time, he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because he refused to sign any more statements for his captors.[3]

He did get more "attention" from the North Vietnamese than other POWs.

[thaiboxerken]

Pretending that torture never works is an easy out: it lets you make what appears to be a cost-free moral decision. But the fact is, torture really can work.

What is the success-rate of torture? What kind of torture is fine in your eyes? Should we allow USA citizens to be tortured as well?

[Ziggurat]

McCain was special:

He did get more "attention" from the North Vietnamese than other POWs.

Never said otherwise. But giving him more "attention" doesn't correspond to using more sophisticated or effective interrogation techniques on him. In fact, his special status had absolutely no connection to any information he posessed. Information was never really the point: acquiescence was. Getting him to "reveal" names of people in his squadron never mattered, because the information had no usefulness. But it WAS useful in training him to acquiesce, even if only superficially, to their demands in order to stop the torture, which is all they needed to get him and others to sign "confessions".

[bob_kark]

McCain is not, contrary to what he would have you think, any kind of expert at interrogation techniques. The North Vietnamese were brutal thugs...
Either way, that slope is a little too slippery for me.

[Pardalis]

I know torture is ethically and morally wrong, but in the case of OBL, even though I would like to say no to torture, in all honestly I wouldn't mind.

If he's ever caught, we can't just imprison him. The man is the head of Al Qaeda for crying out loud. Anything he can say about his organisation, even insignificant, would be a heck of alot and might save lives.

ETA: the man has clearly forfeited his membership to human rights.

[bob_kark]

I know torture is ethically and morally wrong, but in the case of OBL, even though I would like to say no to torture, in all honestly I wouldn't mind.

If he's ever caught, we can't just imprison him. The man is the head of Al Qaeda for crying out loud. Anything he can say about his organisation, even insignificant, would be a heck of alot and might save lives.
How is OBL worse than any other terrorist? How is any terrorist worse than any murderer? Should we subject murderers to cruel and unusual punishment? What if they murdered in self defense? Should we only torture the really bad ones? How do we determine which ones are the really bad ones?

[KelvinG]

I know torture is ethically and morally wrong, but in the case of OBL, even though I would like to say no to torture, in all honestly I wouldn't mind.

If he's ever caught, we can't just imprison him. The man is the head of Al Qaeda for crying out loud. Anything he can say about his organisation, even insignificant, would be a heck of alot and might save lives.

ETA: the man has clearly forfeited his membership to human rights.

Should a document be created that outlines what exacty you have to do to "forfeit your membership to human rights" and thus, be a candidate to be tortured?

[TragicMonkey]

You cut cancer out and dispose of it. You don't play with it. You don't try to score points off it. You don't keep it around so you can let out your anger on it. The practical, sensible, and ethical thing to do it destroy it in the most efficient way possible, then get on with your life.

[Ziggurat]

What is the success-rate of torture?

What kind of torture, under what conditions and over what length of time, obtaining what information from what kind of captives? The answer will vary. For example, the success rate for obtaining verifiable information (that is, information that can be confirmed after it is told) will be significantly higher than the success rate for information that cannot be confirmed.

What kind of torture is fine in your eyes?

I have not answered that. In fact, nothing in my post above precludes deciding that we should never allow torture. My only point above is that this decision does not come for free, as so many pretend it to be.

But since you've asked, I'll spell out a bit of my thoughts on the topic.

I have no problem with using interrogation techniques which can be described as "harsh", including some degree of sleep deprivation, stress positions, etc, on terrorist suspects. But I wouldn't call that torture either. I do think that interrogation techniques which result in injury to the subject should remain illegal for all interrogation subjects, including terrorists. Now, what about techniques that cause severe pain but not injury? I would prefer we never had to use them. But again, that's not necessarily a cost-free decision. I'm having a hard time imagining how to justify NOT causing Bin Laden pain if we could save lives by doing so, and in that sense I'm OK with torture. But I also recognize that there must be checks in place to prevent the abuse of such techniques, and the more prohibited such techniques are the less likely they are to be abused. So I have not concluded yet exactly where I want the line drawn.

Should we allow USA citizens to be tortured as well?

In the context of domestic law enforcement? No. That should be and is constitutionally prohibited.

[Pardalis]

Should a document be created that outlines what exacty you have to do to "forfeit your membership to human rights" and thus, be a candidate to be tortured?

Mass murder would be one.

[Pardalis]

How is OBL worse than any other terrorist? How is any terrorist worse than any murderer? Should we subject murderers to cruel and unusual punishment? What if they murdered in self defense? Should we only torture the really bad ones? How do we determine which ones are the really bad ones?

Interesting questions, I agree it's a tough call. But as I said, in all honesty, I can't pretend I would be against it. It's a hard thing to admit.

[KelvinG]

Mass murder would be one.

Mass murder occurs domestically, yet we afford those persons basic legal rights that prohibit torture.

[Pardalis]

Mass murder occurs domestically, yet we afford those persons basic legal rights that prohibit torture.

Yes, but domestic mass murderers are usually lone killers, individuals. Terrorists on the other hand are part of organisations. If we catch one, he might tell us more about the organisation and help us prevent other attacks. A serial killer, once you catch him, that's it. Lock him up and the murders end.

[BPSCG]

McCain is not, contrary to what he would have you think, any kind of expert at interrogation techniques. The North Vietnamese were brutal thugs, and they tortured him primarily for their own satisfaction, not in order to extract usable intelligence. It was cruel and barbaric treatment, sure, but it was ALSO crude and unsophisticated.


What? North Vietnam tortured McCain? Who knew?

But they were Geneva Conventiona signatories!

Seems strange to hear McCain, of all people, say we should give illegal combatants the same rights as legal ones, or else risk being having our own soldiers tortured.


As far as torturing bin Laden gos, I'm sure I would get some grim satisfaction out of doing it if I had the chance.

And I'm also glad that I live in a country where I would be prohibited from doing so.

[fuelair]

How is OBL worse than any other terrorist? How is any terrorist worse than any murderer? Should we subject murderers to cruel and unusual punishment? What if they murdered in self defense? Should we only torture the really bad ones? How do we determine which ones are the really bad ones?
Self defense is only murder if you were committing a crime, threatened by an armed or trained (or both) person and you kill them to keep from being killed/harmed/arrested etc. Killing in self-defense if you are the assaulted/victim is not murder.

[KelvinG]

Yes, but domestic mass murderers are usually lone killers, individuals. Terrorists on the other hand are part of organisations. If we catch one, he might tell us more about the organisation and help us prevent other attacks. A serial killer, once you catch him, that's it. Lock him up and the murders end.

Does this mean there could be circumstances domestically where torture of a suspect is acceptable, depending on whether or not he had useful information to impart?

Often serial killers withhold information of where bodies are buried, despite the desperate pleas of victim's family members. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for torture? Yes, no?

[Ryokan]

I know torture is ethically and morally wrong, but in the case of OBL, even though I would like to say no to torture, in all honestly I wouldn't mind.

It helps if you pretend he's a human being.

[Pardalis]

Does this mean there could be circumstances domestically where torture of a suspect is acceptable, depending on whether or not he had useful information to impart?

I would have to say yes, if many lives were at stake.

Often serial killers withhold information of where bodies are buried, despite the desperate pleas of victim's family members. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for torture? Yes, no?

No. The dead are already dead, the information about the whereabouts of the bodies won't save lives.

[Pardalis]

It helps if you pretend he's a human being.

He's a human being with crucial information.

[Bjorn]

I would have to say yes, if many lives were at stake.I understand that you are now approving torture if it could save lives, not only in Bin Laden's case, but in general. Is that correct?

[Pardalis]

I understand that you are now approving torture if it could save lives, not only in Bin Laden's case, but in general. Is that correct?

I guess I am, if it's the last alternative.

ETA: What is worst, the guilt of having tortured a killer so that you could save lives, or the guilt of not having done enough to have saved lives?

[bob_kark]

Interesting questions, I agree it's a tough call. But as I said, in all honesty, I can't pretend I would be against it. It's a hard thing to admit.
I understand. I appreciate your honesty. But, this is why I'm against torture. Its easy to start with OBL and end up with jaywalkers.

[Pardalis]

I understand. I appreciate your honesty. But, this is why I'm against torture. Its easy to start with OBL and end up with jaywalkers.

Good thing I'm not in any authority to make such decisions. :D

[bob_kark]

Good thing I'm not in any authority to make such decisions. :D
You and me both. :D

[fuelair]

Does this mean there could be circumstances domestically where torture of a suspect is acceptable, depending on whether or not he had useful information to impart?

Often serial killers withhold information of where bodies are buried, despite the desperate pleas of victim's family members. Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for torture? Yes, no?

As opposed to they and their lawyers using that information to get reduced sentences, special considerations, guarantee of no death penalty application? Yes - and I would volunteer to do it and guarantee useful information (or stroke/heart attack, full on insanity depending on their physical condition) in under thirty minutes. Not to repeat myself, but I do not like evil people. At all.

[thaiboxerken]

[QUOTE=BPSCG;1947324]
Seems strange to hear McCain, of all people, say we should give illegal combatants the same rights as legal ones, or else risk being having our own soldiers tortured.


Are we talking about illegal combatants or just alleged illegal combatants. Prisoners in GITMO haven't really had a fair trial to weed out the innocent from the guilty, have they?

[Mephisto]

I know torture is ethically and morally wrong, but in the case of OBL, even though I would like to say no to torture, in all honestly I wouldn't mind.

If he's ever caught, we can't just imprison him. The man is the head of Al Qaeda for crying out loud. Anything he can say about his organisation, even insignificant, would be a heck of alot and might save lives.

ETA: the man has clearly forfeited his membership to human rights.

The biggest problem I see if finding someone who has equally forfeited his membership to human rights to torture him. I say the worst thing we could do to Bin Laden would be to take several photos of him and Bush together, holding hands in the White House flower gardens, joking over a glass of wine and a huge pork roast . . . then turn him loose in Afghanistan after airing the photos/footage on Al Jaezzera.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
McCain was special......
Never said otherwise. But giving him more "attention" doesn't correspond to using more sophisticated or effective interrogation techniques on him. In fact, his special status had absolutely no connection to any information he posessed. Information was never really the point: acquiescence was. Getting him to "reveal" names of people in his squadron never mattered, because the information had no usefulness. But it WAS useful in training him to acquiesce, even if only superficially, to their demands in order to stop the torture, which is all they needed to get him and others to sign "confessions".

All correct, and your premise was correct. The unsophisticated torture (beatings) were successful at least once. McCain, admittedly because of the horrible beatings, signed a "confession" that his captors later thought wouldn't work before renewing their torture efforts again, which didn't work later.

[Huntster]

You cut cancer out and dispose of it. You don't play with it. You don't try to score points off it. You don't keep it around so you can let out your anger on it. The practical, sensible, and ethical thing to do it destroy it in the most efficient way possible, then get on with your life.

Thank you.

[BPSCG]

Seems strange to hear McCain, of all people, say we should give illegal combatants the same rights as legal ones, or else risk being having our own soldiers tortured.

Are we talking about illegal combatants or just alleged illegal combatants. Prisoners in GITMO haven't really had a fair trial to weed out the innocent from the guilty, have they?As of a year ago (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2432-2005Apr19.html) over 200 had been released after military tribunals determined they were "no longer enemy combatants," whatever that means.

My point was that our soldiers are going to be tortured and otherwise abused (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/20/soldiers.missing/index.html), no matter how well we treat the other side. And McCain, of all people, should know that.

[Huntster]

...But, this is why I'm against torture. Its easy to start with OBL and end up with jaywalkers.

I agree. Torture has no place for either OBL or jaywalkers.

You shoot OBL, and you run over jaywalkers with your car.

[Huntster]

Seems strange to hear McCain, of all people, say we should give illegal combatants the same rights as legal ones, or else risk being having our own soldiers tortured.


Are we talking about illegal combatants or just alleged illegal combatants. Prisoners in GITMO haven't really had a fair trial to weed out the innocent from the guilty, have they?

That's because we haven't agreed on what "fair trial" means for terrorists.

Just shoot them on the spot.

[Cylinder]

Are we talking about illegal combatants or just alleged illegal combatants.

The former. Everyone has had a Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

[corplinx]

I wouldnt be opposed to having him water-boarded. Saying "torture" is asking for an absolute.

Should we to extract information:
Play Britney Spears Music?
Play Mind Games?
Limit his sleep?
Turn him over to the Saudi's for interrogration?
Waterboard him?
Other non-harmful torture?
Nonharmful physical torture that merely inflicts pain?
Harmful physical torture that inflicts pain?
Kidnap family members and torture them in front on him?

This isnt a sliding scale, more like a random list. My guess is most of you are fine with torture. Just to what degree is the question.

[steverino]

"Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse." John McCain

So if they capture ME the good Senator suggests I "name" Bret Favre? Sounds like McCarthyism. (Perhaps some Viet Nam-era Packers were inadvertantly executed by this whimsical strategy.) Maybe Alex Jones should look into this.

[thaiboxerken]

My point was that our soldiers are going to be tortured and otherwise abused (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/20/soldiers.missing/index.html), no matter how well we treat the other side. And McCain, of all people, should know that.

If the USA decided to torture people, do you think that wouldn't add fuel to the fire?

[thaiboxerken]

The former. Everyone has had a Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

Ah yes, the tribunal.
I wouldn't call that a fair trial by any means.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Cylinder
The former. Everyone has had a Combatant Status Review Tribunal.
Ah yes, the tribunal.
I wouldn't call that a fair trial by any means.

Like I wrote:

That's because we haven't agreed on what "fair trial" means for terrorists.

It's Al Queda, the National Lawyer's Guild, and their political/ideological allies/apologists against the rest of the world.

[thaiboxerken]

If you think a closed-door military tribunal is fair, you probably believe sasquatches are real as well.

[Huntster]

If you think a closed-door military tribunal is fair, you probably believe sasquatches are real as well.

They're fair enough for our own servicemen under the UCMJ, they're fair enough for military espionage trials, and I've heard from a supposed skeptic and Democrat that he has an occasional drink with his buddy, who is a sasquatch. (See sig line below...............................)

[fishbob]

That's because we haven't agreed on what "fair trial" means for terrorists.

Just shoot them on the spot.
Before or after you figure out if they are guilty of something?

[Cylinder]

Ah yes, the tribunal.
I wouldn't call that a fair trial by any means.

There is no standard for "fair trial" to hold enemy combatants articulated anywhere. The international standard is, in fact, a "competent tribunal." That's what the CSRTs are.

[thaiboxerken]

They're fair enough for our own servicemen under the UCMJ, they're fair enough for military espionage trials, and I've heard from a supposed skeptic and Democrat that he has an occasional drink with his buddy, who is a sasquatch. (See sig line below...............................)

I don't think they are fair at all, even for our own servicemen.


There is no standard for "fair trial" to hold enemy combatants articulated anywhere.

Then there you go. We can't know or even fathom to guess if a person is guilty of a crime or not if they haven't had a fair trial.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's because we haven't agreed on what "fair trial" means for terrorists.

Just shoot them on the spot.
Before or after you figure out if they are guilty of something?

If you catch them with gun in hand firing on U.S. soldiers (like at Mazar-e-Sharif, after which some of them ended up at Gitmo) or at Iraqi security forces, yes. On the spot. Before somebody here in the states, thousands of miles away, can "figure out" that they might not be guilty of something.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
They're fair enough for our own servicemen under the UCMJ, they're fair enough for military espionage trials, and I've heard from a supposed skeptic and Democrat that he has an occasional drink with his buddy, who is a sasquatch. (See sig line below...............................)

I don't think they are fair at all, even for our own servicemen.

But they work and work well, unlike the civilian court system in this country, which is set up to get criminals released back into society.

[thaiboxerken]

But they work and work well, unlike the civilian court system in this country, which is set up to get criminals released back into society.

Evidence, please, of both assertions.

[fishbob]

If you catch them with gun in hand firing on U.S. soldiers (like at Mazar-e-Sharif, after which some of them ended up at Gitmo) or at Iraqi security forces, yes. On the spot. Before somebody here in the states, thousands of miles away, can "figure out" that they might not be guilty of something.

OK. Clear enough.
Just wanted our soldiers to know who to thank when they get shot on the spot.

[Darth Rotor]

The thread about OBL's alledged death made me think of starting this poll.

I would say definately yes.

ETA: torture for extracting information only.
Nah, don't torture him, just bring him the same breakfast every morning:

Bacon wrapped Jimmy Dean pork sausage and a glass of milk.

DR

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
But they work and work well, unlike the civilian court system in this country, which is set up to get criminals released back into society.
Evidence, please, of both assertions.

No, thanks, fool. I'm not playing the game with you today.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
If you catch them with gun in hand firing on U.S. soldiers (like at Mazar-e-Sharif, after which some of them ended up at Gitmo) or at Iraqi security forces, yes. On the spot. Before somebody here in the states, thousands of miles away, can "figure out" that they might not be guilty of something.
OK. Clear enough.
Just wanted our soldiers to know who to thank when they get shot on the spot.

Usually they don't thank anybody after getting shot, but if they did, it would probably be the shooter.

And, BTW, we have uniformed soldiers. We're talking here about guerrillas.

Like Viet Cong. Remember?

How many trials of VC do you remember?

[thaiboxerken]

No,

Somehow, I'm not surprised.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
No,
Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Nor should you be. You want to play the game of "evidence" that we've played before, and I'm not going there with you.

Been there, done that.

[fuelair]

OK. Clear enough.
Just wanted our soldiers to know who to thank when they get shot on the spot.

Uh, that's what the terrorists do - if they are feeling generous. Otherwise, it is worse. You may have missed the point that TERRORISTS ARE NOT SOME COUNTRIES SOLDIERS, they are any people dressed like civilians who are pointing, throwing detonating, etc. weapons at you and TERRORISTS DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULES OF WARFARE/GENEVA CONVENTIONS. Sorry about the yelling but I am really tired of repeating this point to people who have trouble understanding the difference and the fact that unless explained to gently why it is wrong terrorists will take advantage of those who do.

[thaiboxerken]

Nor should you be. You want to play the game of "evidence" that we've played before, and I'm not going there with you.

Yes, you were thoroughly embarrassed before so I don't blame you for not wanting to be embarrassed again. Is your evidence for your justice system claims in the same class as the evidence for sasquatch and jesus?

[Huntster]

...Sorry about the yelling but I am really tired of repeating this point to people who have trouble understanding the difference and the fact that unless explained to gently why it is wrong terrorists will take advantage of those who do.

I think these people understand quite fully. I think they're just political partisans. Thaiboxerken, with his avatar, shows this quite well.

Their goal isn't for human rights for terrorists. It's to lob flak at the Republican president. If it was a Democratic administration, they'd be quite happy with how things are working out in Iraq.

[thaiboxerken]

That's because if it was a Democratic administration, we wouldn't be in Iraq for something Afganistans did.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nor should you be. You want to play the game of "evidence" that we've played before, and I'm not going there with you.
Yes, you were thoroughly embarrassed before so I don't blame you for not wanting to be embarrassed again....

Ha! I see your sense of humor (which you consider a sense of superiority) is still..................well, intact. (See sig lines below..........)

Is your evidence for your justice system claims in the same class as the evidence for sasquatch and jesus?

Nope. It's in what I see in crime statistics and judicial efficiency in Anchorage vrs. what I see in crime stats and judicial efficiency on adjoining Ft. Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base.

It's in what I remember from when I was a soldier.

It's based on the strict discipline demanded of soldiers by their superiors vrs. the complete lack of discipline found among young Americans on city streets.

It's based on my experience on jury duty (which, coincidentally, occurs again starting next month).

It's based on my own experience as a defendent in both civil courts and the UCMJ.

You know; the Been There, Done That thing again.

[Huntster]

That's because if it was a Democratic administration, we wouldn't be in Iraq for something Afganistans did.

So the Democrats wouldn't go into Afghanistan for something Saudis did (almost all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi)?

Sounds about right. Wring hands some more, and call Monica into the office..........

[Darth Rotor]

That's because if it was a Democratic administration, we wouldn't be in Iraq for something Afganistans did.
Evidence of this?

DR

PS: You may be right in that guess, but I'd like to see your reasoning and evidence to support it would be of interest.

[thaiboxerken]

That's strange, because I've been there and done that and have come to a completely different conclusion.

Did you actually want to show the statistics that support your opinion, or did you just want to claim that there are statistics?

[thaiboxerken]

So the Democrats wouldn't go into Afghanistan for something Saudis did (almost all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi)?

Where was the leader of the group?

[thaiboxerken]

PS: You may be right in that guess, but I'd like to see your reasoning and evidence to support it would be of interest.

My reasoning is that Democratic leaders did not insist that Iraq had ties to those who did the WTC attacks. Also, no Democratic leaders had any revenge motive to go after the guy that tried to kill his daddy.

[Huntster]

That's strange, because I've been there and done that and have come to a completely different conclusion....

Congratulations.

Did you actually want to show the statistics that support your opinion, or did you just want to claim that there are statistics?

I'll just claim that there are crime and judicial statistics, thanks.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
So the Democrats wouldn't go into Afghanistan for something Saudis did (almost all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi)?
Where was the leader of the group?

Also a Saudi, he was believed to be Afghanistan.

We know that because, during the Democratic administration before the Bush administration, the CIA had provided film from drones showing the bastard there. But, of course, nothing was done about it.

Quote:
August 1998: After the al-Qaida bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, President Clinton, in writing, authorized the CIA to arrange the capture of bin Laden, using force. Despite a lot of preliminary groundwork by the CIA, the plan never unfolded - reportedly owing to inadequate intelligence.


Quote:
August 1998 to 2000: After the embassy bombings, the United States placed two submarines on station - likely in the Indian Ocean. They were poised to launch cruise missiles at al-Qaida targets, including bin Laden. However, by the time the drone Predator spy plane soared over Afghanistan in late 2000 and famously pinpointed bin Laden on the ground, the submarines had been redeployed elsewhere. Bin Laden escaped unscathed - since the Predator model used at that time was not armed with a missile.


Quote:
December 1998: The United States once again pinpointed bin Laden in Afghanistan. Although missiles were readied, the strike was called off over fears of collateral damage.


Quote:
February 1999: Intelligence put bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan. Cruise missiles are prepped, but royals from the United Arab Emirates are present and the strike is called off.

Quote:
March 1996 to April 1996: Eager to get from beneath sanctions, Sudan advised the United States that it had a vast intelligence database on bin Laden and more than 200 leading members of his al-Qaida terrorist network. Although FBI officials wanted to parley with the Sudanese and get their files, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright pressed to continue to box the country in economically. No deal was made for the files.

Source (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/6/174747.shtml?s=lh)

[thaiboxerken]

So your saying that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans or what?

And yes, I know Bin Laden was a Saudi. However, he was in Afghanistan. ;-)

[Huntster]

My reasoning is that Democratic leaders did not insist that Iraq had ties to those who did the WTC attacks.

Reasoning? No evidence?

Yes, indeed. It's funny how you like to play that one-way "evidence" game, Kenny.

If you'll remember, the stated reason for invading Iraq was Saddam's failure to live up to U.N. disarmament resolutions, not for participation in the 9/11 attack.

[Huntster]

So your saying that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans or what?

They're all human, and they're all politicians. It's 6 of one, half dozen of the other to us folks in the middle.

And yes, I know Bin Laden was a Saudi. However, he was in Afghanistan. ;-)

Yup. Safe and sound.

Just like now in Pakistan, our "ally."

[thaiboxerken]

Reasoning? No evidence?


Yes, because my statement was a complete opinion of an "alternative universe" where things may have been different. There isn't really evidence associated with such speculation. Someday you'll maybe understand the difference between speculation and claims of fact.

[Darth Rotor]

My reasoning is that Democratic leaders did not insist that Iraq had ties to those who did the WTC attacks. Also, no Democratic leaders had any revenge motive to go after the guy that tried to kill his daddy.
Fair points, and no Democrat had the sack either, to try and pull off what Bush and CO tried to pull off.

Agree or disagree, wise or foolish, it was a bold gamble they tried to pull off: roll the dice, fix bayonets, and change the Mid East from the inside out toward "democracy" by force.

That's not a bet a sissy makes, and thus, not one a Democrat of recent vintage is likely to have bet our blood and treasure on. (For better, worse, and all the rest. :p )

DR

[JayT]

The thread about OBL's alledged death made me think of starting this poll.

I would say definately yes.

ETA: torture for extracting information only.

I'm sure if we tortured Bush enough, he'd finally break down and tell us where Osama bomb Laden was. Hey, you never know!

LOL


The main problem with torture is that the victim would say anything you wanted to hear to stop the pain, at least for awhile, even if it was false.

The reliability of information obtained that way is questionable at best.

And we must also ask ourselves: Is that the way civilized people behave?

If we torture, then the enemy has a potent political weapon to use against us and we couldn't rightly put on any pretense of morality without exposing the flagrant hypocrisy of the government. That hypocrisy is already the cause of a major portion of the conflict in the first place.

Eventually the USA would lose the respect of the totality of the world. How could we harp about human rights and at the same time be among the worst violators ourselves?

It's a moral crisis. We need to get useful information, but at what cost to our international reputation?

I wonder if the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were treated respectfully, not tortured, dehumanised, degraded or in any other way whatsoever abused, if more of them would have been ready to cooperate by now, once they saw that we took their human rights seriously and actually practiced what we preached.

Anyway, it already seems too late now to reverse the damage done to the international image of the USA as the ultimate bastion of human rights, setting the example for the rest of the world.

[Pardalis]

I wonder if the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were treated respectfully, not tortured, dehumanised, degraded or in any other way whatsoever abused, if more of them would have been ready to cooperate by now, once they saw that we took their human rights seriously and actually practiced what we preached.

Anyway, it already seems too late now to reverse the damage done to the international image of the USA as the ultimate bastion of human rights, setting the example for the rest of the world.

I must say this is a powerful argument.

But I honestly don't think extremists would change their point of view just by seeing how "good" we are. These guys are in fanatical mindset, nothing will change their mind. But you're right, it might help stop the more moderate from becoming extremists.

But then again, if we catch OBL, we can't miss the opportunity to learn all we can get from him. He's never going to talk if we leave him be.

[Mycroft]

I know torture is ethically and morally wrong, but in the case of OBL, even though I would like to say no to torture, in all honestly I wouldn't mind.

How about if we don't torture him, but when he's locked up he's with the "general population", if you know what I mean?

[Pardalis]

How about if we don't torture him, but when he's locked up he's with the "general population", if you know what I mean?

Yeah, but that wouldn't do much good as for getting crucial information from him. I think torture just for vengeance is wrong.

[fishbob]

Usually they don't thank anybody after getting shot, but if they did, it would probably be the shooter.

And, BTW, we have uniformed soldiers. We're talking here about guerrillas.

Like Viet Cong. Remember?

How many trials of VC do you remember?

No, you are talking about people that are in the area of the conflict. Some of them live there.
Looks like an insurgent? That is sort of like a guerrilla. Shoot em on the spot.
Looks like an Al Queda infiltrator? That is sort of like a guerrilla too. Shoot em on the spot.
Local guy with a dark complexion? Probably another guerrilla. Shoot em on the spot.
Dead local guy's family? Trouble making guerrillas. Shoot em on the spot.

Ya know, we could just abide by the rules of law that make us a democracy. Or is that too damn much trouble these days?

[fishbob]

Uh, that's what the terrorists do - if they are feeling generous. Otherwise, it is worse. You may have missed the point that TERRORISTS ARE NOT SOME COUNTRIES SOLDIERS, they are any people dressed like civilians who are pointing, throwing detonating, etc. weapons at you and TERRORISTS DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULES OF WARFARE/GENEVA CONVENTIONS. Sorry about the yelling but I am really tired of repeating this point to people who have trouble understanding the difference and the fact that unless explained to gently why it is wrong terrorists will take advantage of those who do.
Yell all you want. In cyberspace, nobody can hear you.

I know terrorists take advantage, so do insurgents, the enemy, criminals, and war profiteers. That is beside the point. Kill them in a fire fight, root them out, track them down, whatever. Once captured, they become prisoners. Detained. Non-combatants from that point on. Where they can't take advantage of anything.

How good is our cause? How good is our nation? What makes us any better than the TERRORISTS? One thing only - we agreed when we signed treaties that brutality and barbarism stop when prisoners are taken.

[fishbob]

If it was a Democratic administration, they'd be quite happy with how things are working out in Iraq.
Bull Guano.
That is the most simplistic partisan apologism I have yet seen in this forum.

The president used his political capital to get us where we are. The president deserves the resulting flak.
Not because he is Republican, but because he leads the corrupt and incompetent administration that got us into this situation.

[Pardalis]

How good is our cause? How good is our nation? What makes us any better than the TERRORISTS? One thing only - we agreed when we signed treaties that brutality and barbarism stop when prisoners are taken.

Good point. Damn... :D

[fishbob]

Fair points, and no Democrat had the sack either, to try and pull off what Bush and CO tried to pull off.

Agree or disagree, wise or foolish, it was a bold gamble they tried to pull off: roll the dice, fix bayonets, and change the Mid East from the inside out toward "democracy" by force.

That's not a bet a sissy makes, and thus, not one a Democrat of recent vintage is likely to have bet our blood and treasure on. (For better, worse, and all the rest. :p )

DR

You know the most common redneck sentence just before the car wreck?
"Hey bubba - watch this"

Bold indeed.
Not a bit sissyish.
Dumb as a box of rocks, though.

[thaiboxerken]

That's not a bet a sissy makes, and thus, not one a Democrat of recent vintage is likely to have bet our blood and treasure on. (For better, worse, and all the rest.

If trying to find peaceful solutions means being a sissy, that's a fine assessment.

[fuelair]

I think these people understand quite fully. I think they're just political partisans. Thaiboxerken, with his avatar, shows this quite well.

Their goal isn't for human rights for terrorists. It's to lob flak at the Republican president. If it was a Democratic administration, they'd be quite happy with how things are working out in Iraq.

But, I do "lob flak" at the republican resident - that doesn't stop me from recognizing military related problems for what they are rather than what I might want them to be so I can lob even more. Skepticism should not involve misuse of data/ forming opinion from misused data or you no longer have reason to call youself skeptical (hopefully clear I am not speaking about you here, but those who do that).

[ponderingturtle]

Uh, that's what the terrorists do - if they are feeling generous. Otherwise, it is worse. You may have missed the point that TERRORISTS ARE NOT SOME COUNTRIES SOLDIERS, they are any people dressed like civilians who are pointing, throwing detonating, etc. weapons at you and TERRORISTS DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULES OF WARFARE/GENEVA CONVENTIONS. Sorry about the yelling but I am really tired of repeating this point to people who have trouble understanding the difference and the fact that unless explained to gently why it is wrong terrorists will take advantage of those who do.


And remember tortureing the various resistance movements was not actualy a war crime durring WWII. THe french had it comeing,

[Ziggurat]

The main problem with torture is that the victim would say anything you wanted to hear to stop the pain, at least for awhile, even if it was false.

The reliability of information obtained that way is questionable at best.

You're assuming that you just torture someone until they give you AN answer, and you're done. But that's crude, to say the least. Just like with non-torture interrogation techniques, you don't simply ask them once and go with whatever answer you get: you keep probing, you ask for lots of specifics, you keep coming back to previous questions to see if details change, you confront them when their story changes, etc. Lies can be told during non-torture interrogations as well. Furthermore, if you're using torture and if the information is verifiable, then when you find out they lied to you, you torture them BECAUSE they lied to you, and they'll think twice about lying the next time around.

No interrogation technique is completely foolproof. But torture can and does work. The argument that we shouldn't use it because it's not effective is false, and it's a cheap escape from the real moral burden before us: how much risk to ourselves will we accept in order to refrain from doing what we don't want to do?

And we must also ask ourselves: Is that the way civilized people behave?

And we must also ask ourselves: how many of our own citizens would we let die in order to keep our hands clean? I don't have a problem with an answer greater than zero, but I do have a problem with the answer "all of us".

If we torture, then the enemy has a potent political weapon to use against us and we couldn't rightly put on any pretense of morality without exposing the flagrant hypocrisy of the government.

Sometimes fights get beyond the point where morality matters, and it becomes an issue of survival: what are we willing to do to avoid getting killed?

That hypocrisy is already the cause of a major portion of the conflict in the first place.

No, actually, it isn't. That is and has only ever been a propaganda tool. Our terrorist enemies despise our professed values, and have never held to them. Why on earth would they ever CARE that we don't always live up to them? And why on earth would someone disappointed that we don't live up to a high moral standard turn to the side of terrorists who are antithetical to such values? It makes no logical sense, and it is NOT the reason, or even a reason, that we're in this fight.

Eventually the USA would lose the respect of the totality of the world.

I don't need the world's respect. I need the world to not try to kill me.

Does Sudan have the world's respect? Are they the victims of Islamic terrorism? No, and no. Your most basic assumptions about the relationship of morality, image, and terrorist violence have absolutely no connection to reality.

How could we harp about human rights and at the same time be among the worst violators ourselves?

How clueless you are. Do you honestly think that even the worst allegations against Bush and his administration regarding torture put us anywhere NEAR the worst violators? No, they don't. Not even close.

It's a moral crisis.

Not for me it isn't. But then, I've got a little something called persepective.

I wonder if the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were treated respectfully, not tortured, dehumanised, degraded or in any other way whatsoever abused, if more of them would have been ready to cooperate by now, once they saw that we took their human rights seriously and actually practiced what we preached.

Don't make me laugh. They hate our values. If they didn't, they wouldn't find terrorism an acceptable career choice. Why, then, would it make any difference to them whether or not we fully abided by a moral standard which they look down upon? It wouldn't make any difference to them at all. But what WOULD make a difference is if they knew they could live out their lives in comfort without having to cooperate in the least. That would indeed matter to them, and can you guess how they'd respond to that?

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Usually they don't thank anybody after getting shot, but if they did, it would probably be the shooter.

And, BTW, we have uniformed soldiers. We're talking here about guerrillas.

Like Viet Cong. Remember?

How many trials of VC do you remember?
No, you are talking about people that are in the area of the conflict. Some of them live there.

Ummmmmmmmm.................

That's the nature of a guerrilla war. The guerrillas live amongst the populace. Like VC.

Looks like an insurgent? That is sort of like a guerrilla. Shoot em on the spot.
Looks like an Al Queda infiltrator? That is sort of like a guerrilla too. Shoot em on the spot.
Local guy with a dark complexion? Probably another guerrilla. Shoot em on the spot.
Dead local guy's family? Trouble making guerrillas. Shoot em on the spot.

Lots of liberty there with your assessments. How about just shooting the ones with guns who are firing on you? How about the ones with arms caches?Those seem like pretty good rules of engagement.

Ya know, we could just abide by the rules of law that make us a democracy. Or is that too damn much trouble these days?

Sure. Here where we live in and nurture our democracy.

Iraq isn't such a place.

[JayT]

I must say this is a powerful argument.

But I honestly don't think extremists would change their point of view just by seeing how "good" we are. These guys are in fanatical mindset, nothing will change their mind. But you're right, it might help stop the more moderate from becoming extremists.

But then again, if we catch OBL, we can't miss the opportunity to learn all we can get from him. He's never going to talk if we leave him be.


I see your point about extremists.

However, since many of those captured were more or less rounded up at random, it seems to me that there may have been at least some prisoners among those hundreds who were not actually extremists in that context. In other words, there may have at least been a few who would have been willing to cooperate - IF we had made an honest effort to be humane to them during the years they were being held.

Many of the people involved in the fighting were local mercenaries, rounded up from the numerous abysmally poor people in the region who would fight for anyone who paid and fed them, but were not themselves idealistic extremists in the way the media defines the term. Just many desperately poor people trying to earn some money who got captured and held prisoner by the US ever since.

I'm inclined to hope that the true, unswayable extremists who will never change until hell freezes over or they die, whichever comes first, are essentially a minority of the many thousands of fighters.

Or maybe I'm just a pathological optimist - hoping for things to turn out for the better without any sane defense for my position.

It was just a thought based on the old adage that 'you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar', but I have noticed that out of all the methods used to obtain information, that method seems to be the one least considered and applied.

"Actually it's quite fun to fight 'em, you know. It's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up front with you, I like brawling," said Mattis.

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said during a panel discussion. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

- Lt General James Mattis, who led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, at a conference in San Diego.


In a statement, General Michael Hagee, commander of the Marine Corps, praised Mattis as "one of this country's bravest and most experienced military leaders."

When Muslims around the world see things like this in the press, and that's only one trivial example, how would you expect them to feel? We are giving them what they need to feed the flames of extremism for generations to come.

It only takes a few religious extremists to give Islam a bad image. Likewise, it only takes a few US military extremists do exactly the same to the image of the US government. Each is fanning the flames of the other.

I don't think that either side genuinely wants peace.

Each side seems to only want to win the conflict rather than directly address the issues of the root causes and resolve it with any hope of a real peace.

[Darat]

Isn't one of the reasons we consider people like Bin Laden our enemy is because they commit acts that are against the principles we believe in?

So they consider it legitimate to deliberately target innocents, they will torture people and so on. If we abandon our principles and carry out these types of acts how are we any different to them?

[Ziggurat]

So they consider it legitimate to deliberately target innocents, they will torture people and so on. If we abandon our principles and carry out these types of acts how are we any different to them?

"these types of acts": what a delightful slight of hand. We aren't talking about slaughtering innocent people deliberately and en masse, are we? So "these types of acts" under discussion are NOT all, or the worst, of what you yourself admitted the terrorists do. No wonder you can't figure out the difference between us and them: you deliberately obscured it.

[Ziggurat]

When Muslims around the world see things like this in the press, and that's only one trivial example, how would you expect them to feel?

When Muslims around the world see terrorist acts committed in the name of their religion, how do YOU expect them to feel? And how do they actually feel?

At this point, I could give a damn about how people feel. It's a hell of a lot more important to me how people act.

[Darat]

"these types of acts": what a delightful slight of hand. We aren't talking about slaughtering innocent people deliberately and en masse, are we? So "these types of acts" under discussion are NOT all, or the worst, of what you yourself admitted the terrorists do. No wonder you can't figure out the difference between us and them: you deliberately obscured it.

What about responding to my post?

[Ziggurat]

What about responding to my post?

I did. I pointed out the obvious fact that even were we to engage in torture haphazardly against terrorist suspects, we would still be very different from the terrorists themselves. That was, after all, your question. And you didn't clue in because you don't WANT to clue in. You're using cheap tactics (like that little slight of hand, equating torture with mass murder) to try to score points.

China, for example, does nasty things. It executes people without fair trials, it probably engages in torture as well. China is nasty. I want the US to be better than China. But China is better than Islamic terrorists, and by quite a lot. There's more than two levels here, and if you can't recognize that difference, if you can't understand that even lowering ourselves below a level you consider acceptable is still very different than lowering ourselves to the LOWEST level, well, you're simply clueless. I doubt you really are that clueless, but you haven't approached the topic with any seriousness in the post I responded to.

[Pardalis]

But if OBL is caught, what do we do with him? This guy knows things that could save lives. We can't just lock him up.

[Darat]

I did. I pointed out the obvious fact that even were we to engage in torture haphazardly against terrorist suspects, we would still be very different from the terrorists themselves.


You have created a straw-man and are attempting to argue against that. If you would like to discuss what I actually posted I'm happy to do so however I'm not that interested in discussing something you made up.



You're using cheap tactics (like that little slight of hand, equating torture with mass murder) to try to score points.

...snip...



I never equated torture with mass murder, that's part of your strawman.

[Darat]

But if OBL is caught, what do we do with him? This guy knows things that could save lives. We can't just lock him up.

We have to make decisions like this all the time, some people have given examples of other such decisions in this thread.

Sometimes we will consider and then decide to carry out actions that we state is against our principles because we will believe the "ends justifies the means".

I suppose it depends whether at the end you decide if you society should have principles or just "decisions of convenience". History is full of examples that does make me lean more to the idea that most of us really do have some principles that we think are upholding at whatever the cost.

Saying that mind you I do know I am probably a hypocrite in that whilst I would say my society should never use torture if somehow I had to choose between torturing someone and the death of my loved ones I strongly suspect I would elect to save my loved ones.

However a belief of mine is that a society can in fact be greater then the sum of its parts so I think a society will resist the temptation to adopt practises against its principles. (Yet again however we know there are many examples from modern history that shows this is not always the case.)

[The Atheist]

Mate, I'm sorry, I don't know where you get this commie claptrap, but this following post of yours really pisses me right off:The main problem with torture is that the victim would say anything you wanted to hear to stop the pain, at least for awhile, even if it was false.

The reliability of information obtained that way is questionable at best.

And we must also ask ourselves: Is that the way civilized people behave?

If we torture, then the enemy has a potent political weapon to use against us and we couldn't rightly put on any pretense of morality without exposing the flagrant hypocrisy of the government. That hypocrisy is already the cause of a major portion of the conflict in the first place.

Eventually the USA would lose the respect of the totality of the world. How could we harp about human rights and at the same time be among the worst violators ourselves?

It's a moral crisis. We need to get useful information, but at what cost to our international reputation?

I wonder if the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were treated respectfully, not tortured, dehumanised, degraded or in any other way whatsoever abused, if more of them would have been ready to cooperate by now, once they saw that we took their human rights seriously and actually practiced what we preached.

Anyway, it already seems too late now to reverse the damage done to the international image of the USA as the ultimate bastion of human rights, setting the example for the rest of the world.And then, if I'm not already ready to cut your gizzard out for above, you come out with this next rebuttal!Each side seems to only want to win the conflict rather than directly address the issues of the root causes and resolve it with any hope of a real peace.

And why do they piss me off so? Because, if there's one thing I just can't stand; (apart from a smart-arse - too much competition) it's someone who can put things down in writing so much better than I would.

I'd nominate both those posts above, but I already nominated you a couple of days ago and I don't want the judge guy to think I'm sucking up to you. My personal opinion is that anyone disagreeing with your opinion ought to be tied to the same rack as OBL when they get him.

<< outstanding >>

[Ziggurat]

I never equated torture with mass murder, that's part of your strawman.

You said "If we abandon our principles and carry out these types of acts how are we any different to them?"

We are discussing torture, which means that unless you went off the reservation completely, your question refers to what happens if we engage in torture, NOT if we engage in mass murder. But given that terrorists don't ONLY torture, they also engage in mass murder, then the difference between us is obvious UNLESS you think that torture is equivalent to mass murder.

So there's three possibilities:
1) you meant your question to ask what happens if we engage in mass murder, despite the fact that we're not talking about such a possibility
2) you equate torture with mass murder, and so do not see a distinction between us engaging in torture and terrorists
3) you asked a question whose answer should have been blindingly obvious to you before you asked it.

You're quite right that I cannot conclude (2) is the correct answer. But I didn't. Had you paid attention to what I wrote, you'd actually know that I consider (3) to be the most likely answer. But of course, (1) is a possibility too. In no case, however, are you taking the topic seriously. The difference between us and Islamic terrorists isn't a line we risk crossing just by torture, even if that represents a DIFFERENT line that we should not cross. That, as I've said, should be obvious. Why it is not obvious to you escapes me.

[Huntster]

In a spirit of negotiation and good will, I've been considering this concept of trying guerrilla combatants.

This policy has never been widely attempted. Granted, some IRA terrorists and some Palestinian terrorists are captured and tried in Britain/Northern Ireland and in Israel, but it wasn't a policy in Civil War Era Missouri, certainly not in Vietnam (remember this famous photo?), or in Columbia. But as I consider the situation, I see the potential for win-win-win for all.

It is clear that the U.S. has the highest number of lawyers per capita (http://www.davidappleyard.com/japan/jp5.htm) in the world. We have plenty to spare. In fact, many Americans would absolutely love the idea of sending a hundred thousand or so lawyers to the Green Zone in Baghdad (because those who are advocating legal justice for guerrilla combatants certainly can't be suggesting that we bring these potential terrorists here for trial). If we don't get enough volunteers among lawyers, draft them. I'm sure the people of the Middle East would be very grateful for such a sacrifice among the American legal community. I certainly would.

Does this make you folks advocating legal justice happy?

[Darat]

You said "If we abandon our principles and carry out these types of acts how are we any different to them?"

We are discussing torture, which means that unless you went off the reservation completely, your question refers to what happens if we engage in torture, NOT if we engage in mass murder. But given that terrorists don't ONLY torture, they also engage in mass murder, then the difference between us is obvious UNLESS you think that torture is equivalent to mass murder.


I was in that post I thought obviously speakign in genral terms - for instance it starts with a generic "enemy". Also mass murder has already been raised by others in this thread.


So there's three possibilities:


...snip...



Or as the evidence points to - you just misunderstood my post? (The evidence being that somehow came up with the idea I was equating mass murder to torture which I did not.)


...snip...

The difference between us and Islamic terrorists isn't a line we risk crossing just by torture, even if that represents a DIFFERENT line that we should not cross. That, as I've said, should be obvious. Why it is not obvious to you escapes me.

This just repeats your strawman - it does not address anything I have posted in this thread.

[Mycroft]

However, since many of those captured were more or less rounded up at random, it seems to me that there may have been at least some prisoners among those hundreds who were not actually extremists in that context. In other words, there may have at least been a few who would have been willing to cooperate - IF we had made an honest effort to be humane to them during the years they were being held.

If they were “more or less” rounded up at random, then why would their cooperation be valuable?

I think there is a logical disconnect here.


When Muslims around the world see things like this in the press, and that's only one trivial example, how would you expect them to feel? We are giving them what they need to feed the flames of extremism for generations to come.


When Muslims around the world see things like what? An American General who thinks men who slap women around are less than men? I got news for you, most Muslims I know of would agree with him.

General Mattis was talking specifically about the Taliban, not Muslims in general. It’s downright racist to assume that Muslims around the world are not sophisticated enough to tell the difference. Afghanistan has been a disgrace to Muslims for decades, and Muslims are just as aware of that as anyone else.

[Mycroft]

This just repeats your strawman - it does not address anything I have posted in this thread.

It's not at all a straw-man, Darat. It's a direct answer to what you asked.

You posit that crossing a line would make us the same as them, he correctly points out that such differences are not black and white, and that there are many more degrees of separation.

[Tony]

unlike the civilian court system in this country, which is set up to get criminals released back into society.

:dl:

[Mycroft]

The main problem with torture is that the victim would say anything you wanted to hear to stop the pain, at least for awhile, even if it was false.


You could make the same argument against any form of interrogation.

Why should we interrogate prisoners? They would only lie to us!

And yet we do interrogate prisoners, we do get valuable intel by doing this.

[Ziggurat]

I was in that post I thought obviously speakign in genral terms - for instance it starts with a generic "enemy".

No. Your post started with the quite specific term "Bin Laden", which preceded the more generic term "enemy".

Also mass murder has already been raised by others in this thread.

You mean people are debating whether or not we should commit mass murder? Absent that, I don't see your point. If nobody brought up mass murder in such a context, then you're the first one to do so, but you gave no indication that you were asking about that possibility.

Or as the evidence points to - you just misunderstood my post? (The evidence being that somehow came up with the idea I was equating mass murder to torture which I did not.)

I don't think you meant to equate the two at all, which is why I know you never understood my point. But the only way to take your question as being one which did not have a transparently obvious answer is if they were being equated. My conclusion is not that you are equating them at all, but rather that you asked a question whose answer WAS transparently obvious, and thus wasn't really serious to begin with.

And that is something YOU have not addressed: you have not stated why the difference between us and terrorists is not obvious even if we engage in torture, nor have you conceeded that it does, in fact, remain quite obvious.

[Darat]

It's not at all a straw-man, Darat. It's a direct answer to what you asked.


It is strawman because he made up a view he tried to ascribe to me and then argued against that - that makes it a strawman.


You posit that crossing a line would make us the same as them,


No I don't, this is just the strawman repeated.


he correctly points out that such differences are not black and white, and that there are many more degrees of separation.

Which I totally agree with - however that is not addressing my post but the strawman that was put up.

[Mycroft]

How good is our cause? How good is our nation? What makes us any better than the TERRORISTS? One thing only - we agreed when we signed treaties that brutality and barbarism stop when prisoners are taken.

Wow, is that really the only difference you can see?

[Mycroft]

It is strawman because he made up a view he tried to ascribe to me and then argued against that - that makes it a strawman.

A view that comes directly from your own words. If you have been misunderstood, then it's time for you to clarify yourself.


Which I totally agree with - however that is not addressing my post but the strawman that was put up.

Then I'm at a loss as to what of your initial statement you believe needs to be addressed?

[Darat]

You could make the same argument against any form of interrogation.

Why should we interrogate prisoners? They would only lie to us!

And yet we do interrogate prisoners, we do get valuable intel by doing this.

So why use torture?

[Mycroft]

Looks like an insurgent? That is sort of like a guerrilla. Shoot em on the spot.
Looks like an Al Queda infiltrator? That is sort of like a guerrilla too. Shoot em on the spot.
Local guy with a dark complexion? Probably another guerrilla. Shoot em on the spot.
Dead local guy's family? Trouble making guerrillas. Shoot em on the spot.


Can you provide any supporting evidence that this is how things are done in Iraq? I ask because you seem to be just putting forth your worst fears as facts.

[Mycroft]

So why use torture?

The point isn't that I support torture, but that particular argument against torture is invalid. There are ways of determining truth from falsehood during interrogation that would apply just as well with torture as without.

[Darat]

No.


This is ridiculous - you are saying you know what I meant and I didn't, that is just silly - of the two of us I am certain I know more about what I meant then you do.


Your post started with the quite specific term "Bin Laden", which preceded the more generic term "enemy".


You are misrepresenting my post. My post started as (underline added)


Isn't one of the reasons we consider people like Bin Laden our enemy is because they commit acts that are against the principles we believe in?


That is clearly talking about generic enemies.

A question that you haven't (despite so many replies telling me what I meant) addressed.


You mean people are debating whether or not we should commit mass murder? Absent that, I don't see your point. If nobody brought up mass murder in such a context, then you're the first one to do so, but you gave no indication that you were asking about that possibility.


Go back in the thread and you will find people using mass murderers as other examples of when we should or should not consider breaching our principles.


I don't think you meant to equate the two at all, which is why I know you never understood my point.

That's because I never did equate the two so how could I know how your points (whatever they were) were meant to relate to anything I had posted.


But the only way to take your question as being one which did not have a transparently obvious answer is if they were being equated.

...snip...


Might be an obvious answer to you - however the question I asked is one that many, many people over the centuries have wrestled with and which there doesn't seem to any consensus in what that transparently obvious answer is.


And that is something YOU have not addressed: you have not stated why the difference between us and terrorists is not obvious even if we engage in torture, nor have you conceeded that it does, in fact, remain quite obvious.

It's your strawman I've no interest in it apart from refuting it is what I posted about.

[fishbob]

Lots of liberty there with your assessments. How about just shooting the ones with guns who are firing on you? How about the ones with arms caches?Those seem like pretty good rules of engagement.


You are mixing up fighting with treatment of prisoners. If an honest mistake, please reconsider the appropriateness of your response. If deliberate, go piss up a rope.

[Darat]

The point isn't that I support torture, but that particular argument against torture is invalid. There are ways of determining truth from falsehood during interrogation that would apply just as well with torture as without.

Fair enough. Would you support the torture of Bin Laden (as per the scenario in the opening post)?

[The Atheist]

The point isn't that I support torture, but that particular argument against torture is invalid.Why don't you, just for a change, offer an opinion on the subject instead of arguing which argument is valid?

I'm now actually quite interested in what your own opinion is. I've seen you dismiss several anti-torture arguments, but the above non-committal statement is the closest you've come to your personal view.

Why am I interested? Because I feel that people who would, or support, torture are possibly the lowest form of life on the planet and I avoid them like the plague they are. Sure, we'll draw a line as to what constitutes torture and what doesn't. To make it easy, we'll say that torture is any form of emotional, physical or psychological abuse which would be illegal in a US prison.

I'll therefore put the question very simply. Do you feel that torture, as defined above is something that is ok, under some circumstances?

Come on, mate, I am waiting with bated breath here.

[fishbob]

. . . I pointed out the obvious fact that even were we to engage in torture haphazardly against terrorist suspects, we would still be very different from the terrorists themselves. . . .
If we act just like they do, we are different? What is your basis for this bizarre assertion?

[Ziggurat]

Might be an obvious answer to you - however the question I asked is one that many, many people over the centuries have wrestled with and which there doesn't seem to any consensus in what that transparently obvious answer is.

So your defense is that even though you SPECIFIED Bin Laden in your post, you really only meant "enemies" in the most abstract sense? If that's the case, then sure, your question makes sense, but it's also a question of little relevance and of absolutely no interest to me, because I'm not faced with some abstract enemy. I DON'T have to consider the set of all possible enemies that might ever confront us. I'm concerned with a rather particular enemy. And with regards to that particular enemy (Islamic terrorists), there is no history of centuries of people wrestling with the question and unable to come to an answer.

So let me ask you, since you still have not clarified your views on this point: Do you or do you not see an obvious difference between us and Islamic terrorists even if we were to engage in torture? This is a standalone question: you can answer it without reference to our previous discussion if you like, so don't try the whole "strawman" defense on this one.

[fishbob]

But if OBL is caught, what do we do with him? This guy knows things that could save lives. We can't just lock him up.

How do you know that?
He has been hiding in some out of the way spot for years. His second and third in command have been captured or killed bunches of times already. He may know nothing of value. So, if he is caught we should just lock him up - in accordance with our principals. Any other course of action will only win him support.

[Ziggurat]

If we act just like they do, we are different? What is your basis for this bizarre assertion?

Have you been paying ANY attention?

Is someone who commits torture the same as someone who commits mass murder?

If not then how would our engaging in torture constitute acting just like them, since they also commit mass murder?

[fishbob]

In a spirit of negotiation and good will, I've been considering this concept of trying guerrilla combatants. . . .

. . . . But as I consider the situation, I see the potential for win-win-win for all. . . .

It is clear that the U.S. has the highest number of lawyers per capita in the world. We have plenty to spare. In fact, many Americans would absolutely love the idea of sending a hundred thousand or so lawyers to the Green Zone in Baghdad. . .

Mixed in among the other parts of your post is the suggestion that we send our surplus lawyers to Iraq.

Sounds good to me.

[Darat]

So your defense is that even though you SPECIFIED Bin Laden in your post, you really only meant "enemies" in the most abstract sense?

...snip...


"defense" - defence of what? I posted what I did - I asked the questions that I did.



...snip...



All well and good but not related to my post...


So let me ask you, since you still have not clarified your views on this point: Do you or do you not see an obvious difference between us and Islamic terrorists even if we were to engage in torture?

...snip...

Yes I see many, many differences.

[fishbob]

Can you provide any supporting evidence that this is how things are done in Iraq? I ask because you seem to be just putting forth your worst fears as facts.

I did not say this is how things are done in Iraq. This is the logical extension of what Huntster suggested should be done in Iraq.

[The Atheist]

Have you been paying ANY attention?

Is someone who commits torture the same as someone who commits mass murder?

If not then how would our engaging in torture constitute acting just like them, since they also commit mass murder?Methinks the one paying too little attention is you. You're linking two different subjects, simply because someone has used the old "we'd be as bad as them" line, which you should be well aware is not an attempt to equate torture with murder, but a moral/ethical question where once ethics are broken, all things are possible.

Given that one of the outcomes of torture is death, then your question is pretty self-fulfilling anyway.

More pertinently, do you support torture?

[fishbob]

Have you been paying ANY attention?

Is someone who commits torture the same as someone who commits mass murder?

If not then how would our engaging in torture constitute acting just like them, since they also commit mass murder?

Time to focus.

This thread is about what to do with Bin Laden if he is captured. He will be a prisoner. We will not be in a position to mass murder anybody and he will not be in a position to mass murder anybody.

You keep dragging irrelevancy into this discussion. I suggest that you are the one who has failed to pay attention.

[Pardalis]

This thread is about what to do with Bin Laden if he is captured. He will be a prisoner. We will not be in a position to mass murder anybody and he will not be in a position to mass murder anybody.

I disagree. OBL does not kill by himself, but he is the leader of an organisation that advocates and executes mass murders. If he is captured, he has the potential of giving us crucial information about that organisation, which will still pose a threat of committing other mass murders even if he's captured.

The problem I see is how to get that information from him.

[Ziggurat]

You're linking two different subjects, simply because someone has used the old "we'd be as bad as them" line, which you should be well aware is not an attempt to equate torture with murder, but a moral/ethical question where once ethics are broken, all things are possible.

Ah, well, if we're playing the "all things are possible" game, then our discussion has become useless already, because all things are always possible.

Given that one of the outcomes of torture is death, then your question is pretty self-fulfilling anyway.

No, it's a possible outcome. Just like death is a possible outcome of driving on the freeway.

More pertinently, do you support torture?

Judging by the definition you gave earlier:
"To make it easy, we'll say that torture is any form of emotional, physical or psychological abuse which would be illegal in a US prison."
then yes, I support torture under certain circumstances. But I don't consider this a good definition of torture, either. Are there no possible circumstances under which you would support anything that fits this definition?

[Ziggurat]

Yes I see many, many differences.

Would you be willing to list one or more of what you think the important differences would be?

[The Atheist]

Judging by the definition you gave earlier:
"To make it easy, we'll say that torture is any form of emotional, physical or psychological abuse which would be illegal in a US prison."
then yes, I support torture under certain circumstances. But I don't consider this a good definition of torture, either. Feel free to come up with a better one, but you have answered what I asked, so it won't matter muchAre there no possible circumstances under which you would support anything that fits this definition?
No.

[corplinx]

I wouldnt be opposed to having him water-boarded. Saying "torture" is asking for an absolute.

Should we to extract information:
Play Britney Spears Music?
Play Mind Games?
Limit his sleep?
Turn him over to the Saudi's for interrogration?
Waterboard him?
Other non-harmful torture?
Nonharmful physical torture that merely inflicts pain?
Harmful physical torture that inflicts pain?
Kidnap family members and torture them in front on him?

This isnt a sliding scale, more like a random list. My guess is most of you are fine with torture. Just to what degree is the question.


Seconding my own notion that the poll itself is silly since torture is too generic a term.

[The Atheist]

Seconding my own notion that the poll itself is silly since torture is too generic a term.Apart from the fact that I've now defined it, so that shall be the definitive definition of torture. After all, I'm always right! (or so I tell everyone)

[Ziggurat]

No.

In other words, if you had control over a terrorist who knew of a plan to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York which would kill millions, you would not be willing to punch him a few times to get information from him that could save those millions, even if that was the only method you had at your disposal which would work quickly enough?

That may be an unlikely scenario, but I didn't ask about likelyhood, I asked about possibility. You think it would be worth sacrificing millions of lives to avoid getting your hands dirty. That's what your categorical denial means: no stakes can ever be high enough.

Any guesses as to whether or not this view is popular?

[The Atheist]

That's what your categorical denial means: no stakes can ever be high enough.Correct.Any guesses as to whether or not this view is popular?No, it's irrelevant. The day I worry about whether my views are popular or not will be the day after I die.

[Ziggurat]

Correct.

Well, at least you're consistent about your position. But I don't see the decision to avoid doing something nasty yourself to one person at the cost of millions of innocent lives as being a moral one. I see it as being selfish and immoral.

No, it's irrelevant. The day I worry about whether my views are popular or not will be the day after I die.

It's not irrelevant in the sense that we live in a republic, and your view isn't ever going to become policy if nobody else supports it.

[The Atheist]

It's not irrelevant in the sense that we live in a republic, and your view isn't ever going to become policy if nobody else supports it.I didn't mention anything about anyone's policy, I was giving you my position. Everyone else's opinion has no relevance to how I feel, and never will, on this subject.

[fishbob]

In other words, if you had control over a terrorist who knew of a plan to detonate a nuclear bomb . . .

Stop right there. You have just entered fantasy land - and you continue to drag irrelevancy into this discussion.

Back in the real world, that scenario is not going to happen.
Back in the real world, a more likely scenario is that a few guys think somebody has some valuable information, and they go a bit too far in their somewhat physical interrogation, and the guy being interrogated dies or is handicapped for life, and nothing useful is learned.

Now how do you vote?

[Ziggurat]

Back in the real world, that scenario is not going to happen.

And your ability to determine the future in this regard is... what, exactly?

Back in the real world, a more likely scenario is that a few guys think somebody has some valuable information, and they go a bit too far in their somewhat physical interrogation, and the guy being interrogated dies or is handicapped for life, and nothing useful is learned.

Now how do you vote?

My question wasn't about likelihood, but about possibility. But if you want to restrict yourself to what is likely, let's talk about a REAL scenario: Khalid Sheik Mohammed. We caught him, and he knew of plans to commit terrorist attacks. It is not publicly known what techniques were used on him, but whatever it was, it worked, and terrorists were caught as a result, probably saving lives. His interrogation may have included waterboarding, which is torture under the definition given by The Athiest. Waterboarding can be done pretty safely. And it's pretty effective, too. The Athiest has stated he would not want this done in order to discover what terrorist plans KSM knew. You have not explicitly stated a position on the matter, preferring instead to pretend that we don't ever have to face the difficult moral question of whether to save lives or commit torture. Now, it may be that such cases are rare. But they are NOT noexistent.

[Mycroft]

How do you know that?
He has been hiding in some out of the way spot for years. His second and third in command have been captured or killed bunches of times already. He may know nothing of value. So, if he is caught we should just lock him up - in accordance with our principals. Any other course of action will only win him support.

Support from who?

[fishbob]

My question wasn't about likelihood, but about possibility.

I see.

[Mycroft]

I did not say this is how things are done in Iraq. This is the logical extension of what Huntster suggested should be done in Iraq.

Oh, well in that case please explain how that would be a natural extension of what Hunster suggested.

[fishbob]

Support from who?

Furriners.

[fishbob]

Oh, well in that case please explain how that would be a natural extension of what Hunster suggested.

Pay attention.
That WAS an explanation of what Huntster suggested.

Are you going to start responding to every post with 'Why'?
If so, the answer from now on will be '4'.

[Mycroft]

Stop right there. You have just entered fantasy land - and you continue to drag irrelevancy into this discussion.

Back in the real world, that scenario is not going to happen.
Back in the real world, a more likely scenario is that a few guys think somebody has some valuable information, and they go a bit too far in their somewhat physical interrogation, and the guy being interrogated dies or is handicapped for life, and nothing useful is learned.

Now how do you vote?

What is your basis for this hypothesis?

If we could implement methods that would prevent this possibility, would you support torture then?

[Mycroft]

Furriners.

So you believe foreigners are such idiots as to be driven to embrace radical Islam merely because they don't approve of methods used to fight them?

That's a foolish and illogical idea.

One reason it's very foolish is that it buys into the "for us or against us" simplistic false dichotomy.

[Mycroft]

Pay attention.
That WAS an explanation of what Huntster suggested.

I disagree that that's a reasonable explanation of Hunster's suggestions.

Are you going to start responding to every post with 'Why'?
If so, the answer from now on will be '4'.

I think what you really object to is your ideas being placed under close scrutiny.

[thaiboxerken]

In other words, if you had control over a terrorist who knew of a plan to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York which would kill millions, you would not be willing to punch him a few times to get information from him that could save those millions, even if that was the only method you had at your disposal which would work quickly enough?

That's a pretty idiotic hypothetical situation. Punching a person in the face hasn't shown to be an effective method of gathering reliable information. So, let's play the Ziggy hypothetical situation game.

Make up silly situations that sound relevent but aren't.


I'll go first:

In other words, if you had control over a terrorist who knew of a plan to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York which would kill millions, you would not be willing to fornicate with him a few times to get information from him that could save those millions, even if that was the only method you had at your disposal which would work quickly enough?

[Mycroft]

Why don't you, just for a change, offer an opinion on the subject instead of arguing which argument is valid?

If you haven't noticed yet, these forums are about critical thinking.

One aspect of critical thinking is being able to recognize a valid argument from an illogical one. It's quite possible to recognize an argument as invalid even if you agree with its conclusion.

Why am I interested? Because I feel that people who would, or support, torture are possibly the lowest form of life on the planet and I avoid them like the plague they are.

Translation: You recognize that we see the world in very different ways, and are now looking for an excuse to hate me for it. :)


Sure, we'll draw a line as to what constitutes torture and what doesn't. To make it easy, we'll say that torture is any form of emotional, physical or psychological abuse which would be illegal in a US prison.

The purpose of American prisons is not to extract information from prisoners therefore it wouldn't make any sense to limit interrogators to methods allowed in US prisons.

[Mycroft]

Fair enough. Would you support the torture of Bin Laden (as per the scenario in the opening post)?

In what sense? Legally? Morally? Can you define "torture"?

[Ziggurat]

Make up silly situations that sound relevent but aren't.

They're relevant to determining what your morals are. And I note that you didn't provide an answer.

I'll go first:

If the scenario I gave is really so absurd, then obviously you're going SECOND, not first. But then, you're an idiot so the mistake is forgivable.

In other words, if you had control over a terrorist who knew of a plan to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York which would kill millions, you would not be willing to fornicate with him a few times to get information from him that could save those millions, even if that was the only method you had at your disposal which would work quickly enough?

If the stakes are millions of people's lives, then I cannot think of something I would not be willing to do to a terrorist in order to keep them alive. Is there anything you would not do if the stakes were that high? Or are you too cowardly to provide an answer?

[thaiboxerken]

Is someone who commits torture the same as someone who commits mass murder?

Morally, yes.

[thaiboxerken]

And your ability to determine the future in this regard is... what, exactly?

Ah yes, christians use this line of argument when speaking of the rapture.

[Ziggurat]

Morally, yes.

Wow, are you clueless.

If torturing and murdering are the same, then you're essentially saying that death and pain are equivalent too. If you've got kidney stones, you end up suffering quite a bit of pain. Might as well just kill yourself before you pass one, eh? Makes perfect sense.

[BPSCG]

Ah yes, the tribunal.
I wouldn't call that a fair trial by any means.How do you explain the fact that over 200 Guantanamo detainees were freed, then? And that some of them immediately returned to the fray and were re-captured on the battlefield? If anything, it sounds like the tribunals erred on the side of caution.

That, apparently, is not good enough for you. I can only conclude from your comment that you would consider anything less than perfect justice to be unacceptable. Correct me if I'm wrong, and explain your standard.

[Ziggurat]

Ah yes, christians use this line of argument when speaking of the rapture.

Ah yes, Ted Bundy also responded to questions in English.

Is that lame response really as good as you've got? Are you even trying any more?

[thaiboxerken]

They're relevant to determining what your morals are. And I note that you didn't provide an answer.

Would you punt a live baby if it meant gathering information the might be critical to stopping an attack?


If the scenario I gave is really so absurd, then obviously you're going SECOND, not first.

The scenario is absurd because there is no evidence that punching a person multiple times will gain reliable information from them.


If the stakes are millions of people's lives, then I cannot think of something I would not be willing to do to a terrorist in order to keep them alive. Is there anything you would not do if the stakes were that high? Or are you too cowardly to provide an answer?

It's not about courage or cowardice, it's about making rational choices that are ethically sound as well. Your scenario provides an absurd situation in where the only solution is an unethical choice. Sorry, bubba, but that won't fly around here.

[fishbob]

Numbered for my convenience:
1 - So you believe foreigners are such idiots as to be driven to embrace radical Islam merely because they don't approve of methods used to fight them?

2 - That's a foolish and illogical idea.

3 - One reason it's very foolish is that it buys into the "for us or against us" simplistic false dichotomy.
1 - You said it. That bears no resemblence to what I believe.

2 - Extremely foolish and illogical. Again, you said it - not me.

3 - We agree.

[thaiboxerken]

If torturing and murdering are the same, then you're essentially saying that death and pain are equivalent too.

This is a very poor analogy. Torture and murder are choices, death and pain are not necessarily choices. Torture and murder involve controlling other people's lives, or ending them.

[Ziggurat]

It's not about courage or cowardice, it's about making rational choices that are ethically sound as well.

In other words, you can't actually answer the question: you cannot say what you would or would not be willing to do in order to save a million lives.

[thaiboxerken]

How do you explain the fact that over 200 Guantanamo detainees were freed, then?

PR.

And that some of them immediately returned to the fray and were re-captured on the battlefield?

Bad PR. Given a fair trial, they might've been found to really be guilty.

If anything, it sounds like the tribunals erred on the side of caution.

For whom?

That, apparently, is not good enough for you. I can only conclude from your comment that you would consider anything less than perfect justice to be unacceptable. Correct me if I'm wrong, and explain your standard.

Nope, just that anything less than how we would treat our own people in a criminal trial is unacceptable.

[fishbob]

What is your basis for this hypothesis?

If we could implement methods that would prevent this possibility, would you support torture then?

We have at least one dead Iraqi Army general who acquired that condition under circumstances similar to the ones I described. So No. No Hell No.

[thaiboxerken]

In other words, you can't actually answer the question:


Why do you abuse women?

[fishbob]

Numbered for my convenience:
1 - I disagree that that's a reasonable explanation of Hunster's suggestions.

2 - I think what you really object to is your ideas being placed under close scrutiny.

1 - What is your interpretation of his suggestion?

2 - I think you are wrong.
And uncharacteristically reluctant to state your ideas. Too much scrutiny lately?

[BPSCG]

PR.:dl:
You have evidence for this, of course...


Bad PR. :dl:
You have evidence for this, of course...

Nope, just that anything less than how we would treat our own people in a criminal trial is unacceptable.In 2006, Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and professor at the University of Chicago Law School, wrote a book called "Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency." [2] In the book, Posner argues that facing terrorism and the threat of WMDs, the scope of constitutional rights must be adjusted in a pragmatic but rational manner. Using cost-benefit analysis to balance the harm new security measures inflict on personal liberty against the increased security those measures provide, Posner comes down, in most but not quite all respects, on the side of increased government power. Posner argues that terrorist activity is sui generis--it is neither "war" nor "crime"--and it demands a tailored response, one that gives terror suspects fewer constitutional rights than persons suspected of ordinary criminal activity.I take it you would disagree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact). Not surprising from someone who thinks the U.S. releases suspected terrorists as some grotesque kind of public relations measure.

[fishbob]

. . . let's talk about a REAL scenario: Khalid Sheik Mohammed. We caught him, and he knew of plans to commit terrorist attacks. It is not publicly known what techniques were used on him, but whatever it was, it worked, and terrorists were caught as a result, probably saving lives. . . .


Evidence please.

[fishbob]

In 2006, Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and professor at the University of Chicago Law School, wrote a book called "Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency." [2] In the book, Posner argues that facing terrorism and the threat of WMDs, the scope of constitutional rights must be adjusted in a pragmatic but rational manner. Using cost-benefit analysis to balance the harm new security measures inflict on personal liberty against the increased security those measures provide, Posner comes down, in most but not quite all respects, on the side of increased government power.

In this citizen's opinion, Posner is an ass.

[Mycroft]

We have at least one dead Iraqi Army general who acquired that condition under circumstances similar to the ones I described. So No. No Hell No.

And that is evidence of;

1) A one time f-up.

2) A systemic problem involving the entire US military.

Take your pick, then provide evidence, please.

Numbered for my convenience:

1 - You said it. That bears no resemblence to what I believe.

Then please clarify. Which "furriners" would support OBL under those circumstances?


2 - Extremely foolish and illogical. Again, you said it - not me.

3 - We agree.

Then clarify; who would come to support OBL if we were to do anything with him other than lock him up? Please be specific.

[thaiboxerken]

You have evidence for this, of course...

No, it's just pure speculation.


You have evidence for this, of course...

Again, more speculation on my part.


I take it you would disagree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact). Not surprising from someone who thinks the U.S. releases suspected terrorists as some grotesque kind of public relations measure.

Yes, I disagree. I think people should treat people fairly, for some reason.

[The Atheist]

If you haven't noticed yet, these forums are about critical thinking.

One aspect of critical thinking is being able to recognize a valid argument from an illogical one. It's quite possible to recognize an argument as invalid even if you agree with its conclusion.Oh sure, critical thinking's magic. As long as it's not being used an excuse to hide one's own opinion.
Translation: You recognize that we see the world in very different ways, and are now looking for an excuse to hate me for it. :)Real translation: I'd like to know what your personal opinion is. I doubt I'd hate you for it, just ignore you.The purpose of American prisons is not to extract information from prisoners therefore it wouldn't make any sense to limit interrogators to methods allowed in US prisons.I see that your critical thinking doesn't extend to a simple yes/no answer. Genius.

I also note that in the very mext post after the one I'm quoting from, you ask Darat to define torture - there's a ready-made one I've already given. Why don't you just answer that question first; honestly and personally. Whether it makes sense to interrogators is irrelevant, I'm asking YOU for YOUR opinion on my question, nothing else.

Or do you lack the guts to actually take a position?

[fishbob]

And that is evidence of;

1) A one time f-up.

2) A systemic problem involving the entire US military.

Take your pick, then provide evidence, please.



Then please clarify. Which "furriners" would support OBL under those circumstances?



Then clarify; who would come to support OBL if we were to do anything with him other than lock him up? Please be specific.

You are really spinning hard today. Not 1, not 2, but a more likely scenario than the 'knowledge of a nuke' scenario that I was responding to. Based in reality.

And try not to take yourself so seriously. Yer gonna rupture something.

[fuelair]

Why don't you, just for a change, offer an opinion on the subject instead of arguing which argument is valid?

I'm now actually quite interested in what your own opinion is. I've seen you dismiss several anti-torture arguments, but the above non-committal statement is the closest you've come to your personal view.

Why am I interested? Because I feel that people who would, or support, torture are possibly the lowest form of life on the planet and I avoid them like the plague they are. Sure, we'll draw a line as to what constitutes torture and what doesn't. To make it easy, we'll say that torture is any form of emotional, physical or psychological abuse which would be illegal in a US prison.

I'll therefore put the question very simply. Do you feel that torture, as defined above is something that is ok, under some circumstances?

Come on, mate, I am waiting with bated breath here.

Be very sure to avoid me like the plague then: when the groups I have mentioned often before are involved, in case it is not clear, I unequivocably and absolutely support torture if there is time, wounding shots to make time, if possible, immediate removal if absolutly necessary to save others. I want them to leave this world knowing a little of the pain they brought to others.

[Mycroft]

Oh sure, critical thinking's magic. As long as it's not being used an excuse to hide one's own opinion.

If you haven’t noticed, I’m pretty open with my opinions.


Real translation: I'd like to know what your personal opinion is. I doubt I'd hate you for it, just ignore you.I see that your critical thinking doesn't extend to a simple yes/no answer. Genius.

:oldroll:

I also note that in the very mext post after the one I'm quoting from, you ask Darat to define torture - there's a ready-made one I've already given. Why don't you just answer that question first; honestly and personally. Whether it makes sense to interrogators is irrelevant, I'm asking YOU for YOUR opinion on my question, nothing else.

Or do you lack the guts to actually take a position?

The real issue here is that opinions are more complex and nuanced than the simplistic dichotomy you’re trying to force on the issue.

[fuelair]

Be very sure to avoid me like the plague then: when the groups I have mentioned often before are involved, in case it is not clear, I unequivocably and absolutely support torture if there is time, wounding shots to make time, if possible, immediate removal if absolutly necessary to save others. I want them to leave this world knowing a little of the pain they brought to others.

Oops, forgot the other part, we can't be lowest, there are George shrub and his cronies and the terrorists, gangs, etc. who are lower.

[Mycroft]

You are really spinning hard today.

I guess "spinning" is anyone who challenges you?

Not 1, not 2, but a more likely scenario than the 'knowledge of a nuke' scenario that I was responding to. Based in reality.

Well, it's not a choice between your scenario and Ziggurat's. Yours is just as fictional.

But when the issue is policy, it's appropriate to contemplate the hypothetical.


And try not to take yourself so seriously. Yer gonna rupture something.

:oldroll:

[thaiboxerken]

If you haven’t noticed, I’m pretty open with my opinions.


Do you support torture or not?

[The Atheist]

If you haven’t noticed, I’m pretty open with my opinions.
LMAO sideways!The real issue here is that opinions are more complex and nuanced than the simplistic dichotomy you’re trying to force on the issue.Marvellous answer!

I will take that as an admission that you do in fact lack the guts to state a position.

Thanks

[Ziggurat]

Evidence please.

Well, I'm not sure exactly what part you want evidence on, so I'll start with this. Get more specific in your questions if you want a more specific response.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,436061,00.html

[The Atheist]

Oops, forgot the other part, we can't be lowest, there are George shrub and his cronies and the terrorists, gangs, etc. who are lower.Have no fear, in my eyes, you'd be just as low as any of them, and lower than some.

[thaiboxerken]

Well, I'm not sure exactly what part you want evidence on, so I'll start with this.

Funny thing, the article didn't mention torture at all.

[JayT]

You're assuming that you just torture someone until they give you AN answer, and you're done. But that's crude, to say the least. Just like with non-torture interrogation techniques, you don't simply ask them once and go with whatever answer you get: you keep probing, you ask for lots of specifics, you keep coming back to previous questions to see if details change, you confront them when their story changes, etc. Lies can be told during non-torture interrogations as well. Furthermore, if you're using torture and if the information is verifiable, then when you find out they lied to you, you torture them BECAUSE they lied to you, and they'll think twice about lying the next time around.

No interrogation technique is completely foolproof. But torture can and does work. The argument that we shouldn't use it because it's not effective is false, and it's a cheap escape from the real moral burden before us: how much risk to ourselves will we accept in order to refrain from doing what we don't want to do?



And we must also ask ourselves: how many of our own citizens would we let die in order to keep our hands clean? I don't have a problem with an answer greater than zero, but I do have a problem with the answer "all of us".



Sometimes fights get beyond the point where morality matters, and it becomes an issue of survival: what are we willing to do to avoid getting killed?



No, actually, it isn't. That is and has only ever been a propaganda tool. Our terrorist enemies despise our professed values, and have never held to them. Why on earth would they ever CARE that we don't always live up to them? And why on earth would someone disappointed that we don't live up to a high moral standard turn to the side of terrorists who are antithetical to such values? It makes no logical sense, and it is NOT the reason, or even a reason, that we're in this fight.



I don't need the world's respect. I need the world to not try to kill me.

Does Sudan have the world's respect? Are they the victims of Islamic terrorism? No, and no. Your most basic assumptions about the relationship of morality, image, and terrorist violence have absolutely no connection to reality.




How clueless you are. Do you honestly think that even the worst allegations against Bush and his administration regarding torture put us anywhere NEAR the worst violators? No, they don't. Not even close.



Not for me it isn't. But then, I've got a little something called persepective.



Don't make me laugh. They hate our values. If they didn't, they wouldn't find terrorism an acceptable career choice. Why, then, would it make any difference to them whether or not we fully abided by a moral standard which they look down upon? It wouldn't make any difference to them at all. But what WOULD make a difference is if they knew they could live out their lives in comfort without having to cooperate in the least. That would indeed matter to them, and can you guess how they'd respond to that?


I see what you are saying perfectly well, but 'experts' on the subject themselves have said the same thing - that information obtained provided by torture was questionable at best. There are several opinions on that hot issue and even the 'experts' disagree - like they disagree on just about every other subject as well.

I believe that your philosophy would worsen matters more than mine if applied to the same problem. At least mine, even if ineffective, shouldn't make them more angry and provoke revenge nor arm them with valid propaganda they could use against us, if nothing more. Therein lies my fundamental point.

Please don't apply for a job in the State Department, I lose enough sleep already!

LOL


P.S.
Although I don't agree with torture, I would still find it hard to shed a tear for OBL or his ilk. I fully know they couldn't care any less about me either way. And you may be right, even though a bit extreme in the way you express it.

[Ziggurat]

Funny thing, the article didn't mention torture at all.

Of course not. The interrogation techniques used on him are not public, and the administration's position is that all interrogation techniques which have been approved do not qualify as torture. So why would the article mention torture? But that doesn't preclude in any way the possibility that waterboarding was used on him.

[fishbob]

numbered for my convenience
1 -
The real issue here is that opinions are more complex and nuanced than the simplistic dichotomy you’re trying to force on the issue.

2 - And that is evidence of;

1) A one time f-up.

2) A systemic problem involving the entire US military.

Take your pick, then provide evidence, please.

3 - Yours is just as fictional.

:jaw-dropp

1 - No, the real issue here is torture of prisoners.

2 - Oh look - a simplistic dichotomy you’re trying to force on the issue.

3 - Except for the part where you describe my real-life example as fictional, you might have a point.

[Ziggurat]

Please don't apply for a job in the State Department, I lose enough sleep already!

Why not? I'm perfectly aware of the utility of pretending to care about people's opinions even when I don't. :D

[fishbob]

Well, I'm not sure exactly what part you want evidence on, so I'll start with this. Get more specific in your questions if you want a more specific response.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,436061,00.html

Bad guys actually captured, attacks actually prevented, lives actually saved, the stuff you claimed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's interrogation resulted in.

[thaiboxerken]

Bad guys actually captured, attacks actually prevented, lives actually saved, the stuff you claimed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's interrogation resulted in.

I would also add "torture actually used."

[JayT]

When Muslims around the world see terrorist acts committed in the name of their religion, how do YOU expect them to feel? And how do they actually feel?

At this point, I could give a damn about how people feel. It's a hell of a lot more important to me how people act.

Yes. But keep in mind that those actions have their basis in how they feel.

Both sides are wrong to deliberately provoke each other. That certainly won't solve much of anything. You might as well kick a hornet's nest and then pretend to wonder why you got stung.

I would like to see the day when Muslims take to the streets by the millions in protest to terrorist acts committed in the name of their religion, with the same degree of outrage they expressed over a cartoon.

But don't hold your breath.

Nobody in power really wants peace. They only want to win at any cost.

[JayT]

Why not? I'm perfectly aware of the utility of pretending to care about people's opinions even when I don't. :D

I hope that's a joke.

But don't you think that someone who really does care would do a better job in the long run than someone who merely pretends to care? They would certainly have less skeletons in their closet to worry about. (Even though it only takes one to get you into trouble).

:)

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Lots of liberty there with your assessments. How about just shooting the ones with guns who are firing on you? How about the ones with arms caches?Those seem like pretty good rules of engagement.

You are mixing up fighting with treatment of prisoners. If an honest mistake, please reconsider the appropriateness of your response. If deliberate, go piss up a rope.

You're mixing up combatants with prisoners, period. As long as they're combatants, your aim is good, and you're on time, there will be no prisoners of any kind.

If we have both made an honest mistake, perhaps we should consider the other's position.

If not, please don't piss on yourself.

Just try to sent me a better shot.

[slingblade]

"Would you say yes to torture if OBL was caught? "

No.

[Mycroft]

numbered for my convenience

1 - No, the real issue here is torture of prisoners.

Except we can't even agree on what that means. Some people say loud music qualifies.


2 - Oh look - a simplistic dichotomy you’re trying to force on the issue.

And if you disagree, you could simply provide another option. Of course, you choose instead to dodge the question, much like you've dodged the question on who would support OBL.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1949426#post1949426


3 - Except for the part where you describe my real-life example as fictional, you might have a point.

It is fictional as applied. IIRC, that Iraqi General didn't die because someone was trying to torture him for information, he died because a soldier sat on him. It was a while ago, and I admit my memory may have it wrong, but it certainly doesn't fit the bill of interrogation under controlled circumstances.

[Mycroft]

Do you support torture or not?

The problem is with the definition of torture. Some in these forums have defined it so loosely such that loud music or dousing them with the liquid from a glow stick is “torture”. I disagree.

Certainly we can all agree (I think) that electric shock, hot irons, mutilations, caning the soles of the feet and other medieval methods should be forbidden, but what about less severe methods? Can we interrupt their sleep, and to what degree? Can we adjust the temperature of their living quarters? Are we allowed to lie to them?

[Tricky]

Why not? I'm perfectly aware of the utility of pretending to care about people's opinions even when I don't. :D
The key is sincerity. Once you can fake that, the rest is easy.

[peptoabysmal]

Bin Laden strikes me as a "never be taken alive" kind of guy, so if he isn't killed directly by opposing forces, I suspect he'd take his own life.
Cause of course, he's got them 72 virgins waiting for him.
Really? I think OBL is the kind of guy who is only good at getting other morons to blow themselves up. He had his chance to go down in the blazing glory of martyrdom, but chose instead to evacuate to Pakistan. If we find him, he will be quivering in some spider hole.

[Darat]

In what sense? Legally? Morally? Can you define "torture"?

In the scenario given in the OP (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1947165#post1947165) would you support torture? If yes why - if no why?

[Mycroft]

In the scenario given in the OP (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1947165#post1947165) would you support torture? If yes why - if no why?

In the poll, I voted no.

[fishbob]

The problem is with the definition of torture. Some in these forums have defined it so loosely such that loud music or dousing them with the liquid from a glow stick is “torture”. I disagree.

Certainly we can all agree (I think) that electric shock, hot irons, mutilations, caning the soles of the feet and other medieval methods should be forbidden, but what about less severe methods? Can we interrupt their sleep, and to what degree? Can we adjust the temperature of their living quarters? Are we allowed to lie to them?

This is really simple. No - hell no.
Willing participants in abuse, torture, mistreatment, application of misery and pain, whatever you want to call it, of captives are no better than bin Laden.

[Mycroft]

This is really simple. No - hell no.

So you can't even interrupt their sleep?

[Pardalis]

But what do we do with Bin Laden once we catch him? How do we acquire the information he's keeping?

[fishbob]

And if you disagree, you could simply provide another option. Of course, you choose instead to dodge the question, much like you've dodged the question on who would support OBL.

See post 178.
Support for OBL - Afghanis pissed at the US, Iraqis pissed at the US, Iranians pissed at the US, Pakistanis pissed at the US, Syrians pissed at the US, the occassional Californian and Brit pissed at the US. Notice the common factor (besides them being furriners)?

When we pronounce to the world that we are on the moral high ground and we are spreading democracy, then we get caught doing something just as vile and barbaric as those we are fighting, we piss off the undecideds and the moderates and the marginals.

[fishbob]

So you can't even interrupt their sleep?

Come up with some particulars and then ask.
Although you probably already know the answer.

[fishbob]

But what do we do with Bin Laden once we catch him? How do we acquire the information he's keeping?

What information? The case is IF he knows something useful, not THAT he knows something useful.

Plea bargain? Extra ration of rum or smokes? Something civilized maybe?

[Pardalis]

What information? The case is IF he knows something useful, not THAT he knows something useful.

Plea bargain? Extra ration of rum or smokes? Something civilized maybe?

What do you mean "what information"? He's the leader of Al Qaeda, anything he knows is relevant.

How do you make this man talk?

[Mycroft]

See post 178.
Support for OBL - Afghanis pissed at the US, Iraqis pissed at the US, Iranians pissed at the US, Pakistanis pissed at the US, Syrians pissed at the US, the occassional Californian and Brit pissed at the US. Notice the common factor (besides them being furriners)?

Being pissed at the US (itself arguable) is not at all the same as supporting OBL.

This seems blindingly obvious to me. Do you agree, or do you hold a simplistic "for us or against us" worldview?


When we pronounce to the world that we are on the moral high ground and we are spreading democracy, then we get caught doing something just as vile and barbaric as those we are fighting, we piss off the undecideds and the moderates and the marginals.

So you believe there are hoards of people out there who can't decide if they support the US or Osama Bin Laden? That these people are waffling and just waiting for an excuse to go one way or another?

Doesn't that sound a little crazy to you?

[fishbob]

Being pissed at the US (itself arguable) is not at all the same as supporting OBL.

This seems blindingly obvious to me. Do you agree, or do you hold a simplistic "for us or against us" worldview?

So you believe there are hoards of people out there who can't decide if they support the US or Osama Bin Laden? That these people are waffling and just waiting for an excuse to go one way or another?

Doesn't that sound a little crazy to you?

Pay attention. I said that these pissed off people are potential supporters of OBL. This group is where the recruits will come from.
The rest of the cr@p you attributed to me is your typical misdirection and diversion tactic. That you keep trying this is what seems a little crazy to me.

[Mycroft]

Pay attention.

I am.

I said that these pissed off people are potential supporters of OBL.

You're saying you think it's perfectly natural for someone to get pissed at the US for using "torture" methods that include, you know, waking someone in the middle of the night to ask him questions, and the natural response to this anger is to join someone who kills random people by the thousands and whose subordinated make and distribute head-chopping snuff films?

Can you understand at all why I'm skeptical about this?

[Pardalis]

Fishbob, could you answer my question? What do you do with OBL once he's caught, how do you make him talk?

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*

If a person is interrogated while under the influence, they will not subseqeuntly remember much, if anything, of what they said during the interrogation. During subsequent interrogations, the subject is asked to repeat their answers from a previous session. If you don't KNOW what you said last time, how do you respond? Well, there's really only one safe way to respond, particularly if there's a strong incentive offered (such as torture): tell the truth.

*snip*
The countermeasure is so obvious it almost hurts. Obviously, the professional (secret agent, terrorist leader, whatever) will have a set of false information memorized for just such an occasion. Has the additional advantage that such false information can be designed to be harmful, not just useless.

Other than that:

No we shouldn't respond to terrorism by imimicking it. Thus, we shouldn't use suicide bombs, deliberately target innocent civilians, use torture, etc.

And:

There is no such thing as moderate torture. Torture works by subjecting people to the unbearable or realistically threatening to do so. If the subject knows you'll at worst slap him around a bit, he ain't gonna talk.

Hans

[Darat]

Fishbob, could you answer my question? What do you do with OBL once he's caught, how do you make him talk?

The same way we do with any reluctant person for any crime? Sustained questioning, psychological tricks, deals and so on?

[slingblade]

The same way we do with any reluctant person for any crime? Sustained questioning, psychological tricks, deals and so on?

I'm not so sure about the psychological tricks; it would depend. Psychology can be as brutal as a beating, and in some ways, longer lasting.

I haven't yet seen anyone prove that torture works to extract useful, genuine, immediate information. If that can't be proven, then it's just inflicting revenge. And that's just lowering ourselves.

I also haven't any reason to think this man would give up the secrets of his organization if captured, torture or no torture. In fact, torture would probably play into his hands nicely. Gets the guys on the outside all riled up, and plotting nasty revenge. A martyr complex extends easily to torture, and I would expect OBL to revel in the chance to suffer for his God.

That, or else the moment we capture him, he begins to spill his guts as quickly as he can, hoping we won't kill him. I don't see a middle-ground. He knows we want him dead, and he knows this country probably won't allow any deal which lets him live, regardless of what he tells us. So why tell us anything, torture or no?

[thaiboxerken]

The problem is with the definition of torture.

How about we use the definition already offered in this thread? Any form of abuse, physical or mental harm that is illegal to do to USA citizens by law enforcement in the USA.

Do you think waterboarding (almost drowning the victim) is an ok method of interrogation?

[Darth Rotor]

If trying to find peaceful solutions means being a sissy, that's a fine assessment.
Like the peaceful solution in 1999 that resulted in a 19 nation alliance bombing a small country for 71 days? That sort of peaceful solution? ;)

Not every situation has a peaceful and effective solution attached to resolving it. (Not excusing the decision to go to war in Iraq, just a matter of how politics often runs into the irreconcilable differences problem.)

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Nobody in power really wants peace. They only want to win at any cost.
Also true for a number of people not in power. ;)

DR

[Ziggurat]

The countermeasure is so obvious it almost hurts. Obviously, the professional (secret agent, terrorist leader, whatever) will have a set of false information memorized for just such an occasion. Has the additional advantage that such false information can be designed to be harmful, not just useless.

That's why you ask for LOTS of specific details. What color shirt was the contact wearing? What was the weather like that day? etc, etc. You can never create a false story of any significant size with anywhere near the detail of the real story, and you WILL end up having to make up details on the spot which, if you're under the influence, you won't remember later. You get caught in the lie. This "countermeasure" may be obvious, but it's also not particularly effective if the interrogators know what they're doing.

[Darth Rotor]

How about we use the definition already offered in this thread? Any form of abuse, physical or mental harm that is illegal to do to USA citizens by law enforcement in the USA.

Do you think waterboarding (almost drowning the victim) is an ok method of interrogation?
Yes.

I don't think most people understand what a mind f*** it is. I also don't think most people understand how fundamentally safe it is when done under proper supervision in a controlled environment. Prisoner interrogations are, if done by the book, very much a controlled environment procedure. Anal retentively so. (Caveat: my knowledge is about 20 years old, but I doubt all that much has changed beyond refinement in psychological mind f***ing and perhaps a drug or two.)

The problem with this discussion is the unfamiliarity with the details most people have, and the concern (see Abu Ghraib, or the guy who got suffocated in Iraq due to negligence) that proper supervision isn't being correctly implemented, the fear that policy guidance was given at the highest levels to be less than rigorous in the detailed adherence to safety protocols in the application of some techniques further fear that an "end justifies the means" philosophy is being endorsed, implemented and advocated.

Another problem in this public debate is people associating "battery cables to the nuts" and other horrific physical torture methods to other techniques, considerably less physically traumatic, as "one and the same."

Whoever made the whinge about "psychological being as bad, blah blah blah" forgets that physical and psychological duress are handled differently, and can be recovered from differently, by the person they've been inflicted upon.

My opinion: in the vast majority of cases, there being formal administrative rules on a whole host of treatment methods, all was done by the book. In some cases, book was violated. <= That's illegal, and makes one subject to tiral/jail/punisment/courtmartial.

Most people didn't know what was in the book. I only know a little of what was in the book about 20 years ago.

"The book" was a regulation approved by Congress. Read that again. Military regulations get reviewed by Congress. They frequently get changed by Congress for political, not practical nor fundamental, reasons. So, this current change is not surprisingly politically motivated, which pollutes the review and revision process considerably. While I don't disagree with Senator McCain's initiative, he's trying to polish an image problem that is a "horse out of the barn" matter.

At issue, and conflated with the policy matters, is the separate matter of some people either blowing off, or are carelessly in applying, "the book." These people tend to get punished by the system for violating the regulations. The Abu Gharaib photos were released by a defendent who was being charged with wrongdoing in that case. But, see the third bullet above, what policy guidance was made that amended the book? I suspect some of those memos are classified.

Back to the OP:

Should OBL be waterboarded for sport? No.
As payback? No.
If that technique might get him to reveal something of imporatnce? Yes - wait, make that a maybe. ( I still hold to my original idea, feed him pork sausage warpped in bacon, but now add oysters on the half shell for dessert.)

The core question is, based on his case, his psychology, his health, and a host of other factors, what is likely to get him to reveal something he's trying not to, and that needs knowing for further success against a variety of his terror cells? What methods are too risky based on his health? What might he know that you can trick him into revealing? The best methods tend to be psychological methods.

Osama is a True Believer, to a certain extent, but he is also a manipulator of others. That would make him a challenge. He understands manipulation. I don't know how personally brave he is, but some people in his situation would welcome death over being "defeated."

As Stockdale noted, time and again in his various writings, psychological tricks and abuses can be resisted, sometimes for incredibly long times. So too can physical abuse, but for much shorter times. The aim is to remain alive. The body will break long before the mind will, if one knows how to hold one's self mentally together.

I was trained in some of the methods one uses to resist psychological abuse. I couldn't be trained to deal with someone cutting off my hand, my head, or caving in my nose with a blunt object. I could only be trained to deal with the psychologial effect of that injury in a PoW environment.

Since the vast majority of the public are not trained thusly, and not familiar with that body of knowledge, the majority of the public discussion is from a position of ignorance. It thus deals with misconceptions and immense strawmen, as well as an image they have, in their heads, of what the purpose is of capturing, rather than killing, enemies on the battlefield.

"Torture" has too much baggage, so I reject the question "do you approve of torture or not."

I think it suitable to employ a suite of psychological manipulation, to include sleep deprivation, lights, noise, etc, as suitable means of selectively interogating terrorists.

Not PoW's, since the Geneva agreements are very explicit in who those are and what their treatment standard is.

Note: where is the outcry about how Iraqi army soldiers were treated in 2003? 1991? Nowhere. Why? If you play Geneva, you get the Geneva treatment.

I agree with Posner's sui generis assessment regardng terrorism being something more than criminal activity, but other than war as defined by Geneva, (the world's wisemen have yet to catch up conceptually to Fourth Generation Warfare) but I do not agree with his conclusion on the general need to move closer to a police state.

DR

[Garrette]

There is no clear line separating what constitutes torture and what does not. Though, as Darth Rotor points out, the line is on the other side of more activities than most unknowledgeable folk think. If a line were to be decided upon, it would likely shift over time to match prevailing attitudes.

This is not unique to the world of torture. It applies to obscenity and, at least in the U.S., to what is acceptable on network television. It applies to child rearing and ideas of what is appropriate there. Difficulty and ambiguity are the norm, but they should never be used as an excuse to avoid the debate or even to voice moral imperatives (I do not pretend to use that term in any formal sense as I am not a rigorous student of philosophy).

My own take is simple, but difficult for me to express, though I think this forum is an appropriate one in which to try.

The first part of my opinion is this: Torture is wrong. From a societal perspective it must always remain wrong. Quibble over whether sleep-deprivation constitutes torture if you like, but when the decision is made, then brook no exceptions. None. Ever.

The second part is this: There may well be times when, on an individual level, torture becomes not only acceptable, but a matter of duty. It is not hard to hypothesize scenarios in which each of us would at least consider torture and in which most of us would actually perform it, even though regretful of the need. Family in danger and the only way to save them is to immediately extract information from the one person (whose identity and knowledge are beyond doubt) in your custody and who will respond to nothing else? Torture. Extrapolate to a city in danger from a terrorist’s planted suitcase nuke: Torture.

So how do the two parts not conflict? By keeping societal and individual decisions separate.
If I torture to extract the information, I do so in the full knowledge that the society must condemn me. I will be tried, probably convicted, and punished severely.

If the value of the information that may be obtained through the act of torture does not justify my legal punishment for committing the crime of torture, then I have none of the high moral purpose so ardently claimed by those who advocate torture on ever looser grounds.

I have dealt with too many bullies and debated with too many sophists to any longer brook the false assumption of a noble mantle. Torture is wrong. Society can never condone it. If an instance arises in which the failure to torture would result in horrific loss, then the individual with a truly higher moral standing would not object when, for the price of saving many lives, his own life became forfeit.

[Upchurch]

Okay, this thread grew really fast. I have not read every post so I apologize if I'm basically reiterating something that someone else already said.

The thread about OBL's alledged death made me think of starting this poll.

I would say definately yes.

ETA: torture for extracting information only.
No.

Not only "no", but "hell no". I'd stress an even stronger "no" if forum rules would permit it.

Torture is not what we're supposed to be about. This country's foundation was a product of The Enlightenment and now we're talking about going backwards to The Inquisition. Torture is wrong morally, ethically, and is an affront to our better natures as humans. If we are comfortable advocating torture against a fellow human being, no matter how despicable he may be, how are we any less despicable?

No. No. No. A million times, NO.

If we were to do such a thing, or if we have done such a thing, it is just another indication of our slide back into the Dark Ages.

[Ziggurat]

So how do the two parts not conflict? By keeping societal and individual decisions separate.
If I torture to extract the information, I do so in the full knowledge that the society must condemn me. I will be tried, probably convicted, and punished severely.

If the value of the information that may be obtained through the act of torture does not justify my legal punishment for committing the crime of torture, then I have none of the high moral purpose so ardently claimed by those who advocate torture on ever looser grounds.

This is a position I can accept, because you haven't pretended that torture doesn't work or that there cannot be situations in which it would be better to use it. You have come to a position without avoiding the difficult moral questions.

[Darth Rotor]

If we were to do such a thing, or if we have done such a thing, it is just another indication of our slide back into the Dark Ages.
Given the revival of religious motivations for social and political actions in a large part of the world, that slide is already well underway.

LTC West was right, and he didn't torture anyone. He scared the crap out of a guy, however, by setting off a gun near his head and by convincing the guy (fooled him pretty good, it seems) that he'd kill him if he didn't talk. This method elicited information that got more guerillas captured, avoided a fire fight, and saved some US casualties. Funny, a bunch of the usual useful idiots went high and right on him about "torture" and "intimidation" in a counterinsurgency.

For his efforts, LTC West was punished by the system (http://www.militarycorruption.com/LTCWest-1.htm), in part because he allowed or overlooked the punching of some recently captured guerillas by soldiers in his unit. <== That last bit seems to me a key reason he was relieved of command: he allowed the book to be ignored, and didn't hold his troops to standards he was supposed to.

DR

[Upchurch]

Given the revival of religious motivations for social and political actions in a large part of the world, that slide is already well underway. I've been saying that for about a decade now. Scares the bejeesus out of me.

[Huntster]

Another excellent post (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1950938&postcount=222) from Darth Rotor. Thanks for that.

[Pardalis]

The same way we do with any reluctant person for any crime? Sustained questioning, psychological tricks, deals and so on?

Yeah, I guess that's the humane way, but I doubt it'll work with him.

[Pardalis]

No.

Not only "no", but "hell no". I'd stress an even stronger "no" if forum rules would permit it.

Torture is not what we're supposed to be about. This country's foundation was a product of The Enlightenment and now we're talking about going backwards to The Inquisition. Torture is wrong morally, ethically, and is an affront to our better natures as humans. If we are comfortable advocating torture against a fellow human being, no matter how despicable he may be, how are we any less despicable?

No. No. No. A million times, NO.

You're absolutely right, but I can't help but to think that this man has knowledge that could prevent further attacks, he has information about how his organisation operates that would greatly help in its destruction.

Even though I would like to think like you, I somehow can not.

[bigred]

The thread about OBL's alledged death made me think of starting this poll.

I would say definately yes.

ETA: torture for extracting information only.The hell you say. For sheer enjoyment factor as well. Also videotape it and broadcast to the world.

How about we start with searing hot pig grease jammed down his throat?

And pardon me while I puke on the 60+ bleeding hearts who are too squeamish to be "inhumane" to a thing which hardly qualifies as human.

[fishbob]

You're saying you think it's perfectly natural for someone to get pissed at the US for using "torture" methods that include, you know, waking someone in the middle of the night to ask him questions, and the natural response to this anger is to join someone who kills random people by the thousands and whose subordinated make and distribute head-chopping snuff films?

Can you understand at all why I'm skeptical about this?

I am skeptical of your veracity. You persist in misrepresenting what I posted as if that somehow expresses a position.

Come back when you can participate in an honest discussioin.

[Upchurch]

You're absolutely right, but I can't help but to think that this man has knowledge that could prevent further attacks, he has information about how his organisation operates that would greatly help in its destruction.
If something else happens, it will happen and we will deal with it. It will hurt and it will suck and we will question why it had to happen.

But if we turn away from the core principles that makes us us, then it is no longer about right and wrong, but about which bully is stronger. At that point, it doesn't really matter who wins.

[fishbob]

Fishbob, could you answer my question? What do you do with OBL once he's caught, how do you make him talk?

I did. See post 209.
And he may not talk. That is the nature of reality.

[Pardalis]

If something else happens, it will happen and we will deal with it. It will hurt and it will suck and we will question why it had to happen.

That's the thing, if we catch him, we have the opportunity to prevent something terrible from happening, or at least, we get more chances to avoid it from happening. I prefer to be safe than sorry.

But if we turn away from the core principles that makes us us, then it is no longer about right and wrong, but about which bully is stronger. At that point, it doesn't really matter who wins.

I think it matters who wins. If we die, we loose and they win. I'm enclined to accept whatever we can do to prevent that.

[Upchurch]

That's the thing, if we catch him, we have the opportunity to prevent something terrible from happening, or at least, we get more chances to avoid it from happening. I prefer to be safe than sorry.
To quote the oft quoted master, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

How sorry will you feel when someone else decides they'd rather be safe than sorry at your expense? It is an old cliche' that two wrongs do not make a right, but that is a cliche' because it is true.
I think it matters who wins. If we die, we loose and they win. I'm enclined to accept whatever we can do to prevent that.
Of what value would our existance have over the others, if we are no better than they are?

[Pardalis]

I did. See post 209.

Plea bargain? Extra ration of rum or smokes? Something civilized maybe?

I thought you made a joke.

[Pardalis]

How sorry will you feel when someone else decides they'd rather be safe than sorry at your expense? It is an old cliche' that two wrongs do not make a right, but that is a cliche' because it is true.

That's the nature of war.

Of what value would our existance have over the others, if we are no better than they are?

By "they", I meant Al Qaeda of course. And I'm only talking about forcing information out of OBL, I'm not talking about doing atrocities like Al Qaeda is doing.

[Garrette]

You're absolutely right, but I can't help but to think that this man has knowledge that could prevent further attacks, he has information about how his organisation operates that would greatly help in its destruction.

Even though I would like to think like you, I somehow can not.I will not apologize for linking to myself as I think this is important enough to emphasize: http://http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1950970#post1950970

If you have OBL in your power and you are certain that he has such knowledge and you are certain that the only way to obtain the knowledge quickly enough is to torture him and you believe it is morally imperative that you obtain this information but you are unwilling to accept the personal consequences for torturing him, then I suggest your moral imperative isn't moral at all.

[fishbob]

The hell you say. For sheer enjoyment factor as well. Also videotape it and broadcast to the world.

How about we start with searing hot pig grease jammed down his throat?

And pardon me while I puke on the 60+ bleeding hearts who are too squeamish to be "inhumane" to a thing which hardly qualifies as human.
And what makes your attititude any different from his? What makes you any more human than him? Nothing apparent to the casual reader.

[Garrette]

That's the nature of war. The nature of those on the moral high ground is to restrain the nature of war, not remove all its restraints.

[Pardalis]

http://http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1950970#post1950970


I'm sorry, your link is not working.

[Garrette]

I'm sorry, your link is not working.Sorry. I'm technically deficient.

It is post #223 in this thread.

[Upchurch]

That's the nature of war. There is defending oneself in the heat of battle and there is cold, calculated torture. The two are not the same thing.

By "they", I meant Al Qaeda of course. And I'm only talking about forcing information out of OBL, I'm not talking about doing atrocities like Al Qaeda is doing.
You aren't? I thought you were talking about performing torture on a human being.

[Ziggurat]

To quote the oft quoted master, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

That's a misquote, and the correct attribution is unknown.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

The correct original quote is "Thofe who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchafe a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deferve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."

And yes, the capitalized parts were originally printed in all caps, and yes, that's archaic "f"s used for "s".

The quote is often attributed to Franklin, because it appears in a book he published. But he did not write that line.

And in any case, note that this quote is different in meaning from yours: the word "essential" is usually dropped when this sentence is "quoted".

[Pardalis]

There is defending oneself in the heat of battle and there is cold, calculated torture. The two are not the same thing.

Battles in war are often prepared in advance, they are meticulously calculated. The over all goal is the defeat of the other side. I guess wars a bad however you look at it.

You aren't? I thought you were talking about performing torture on a human being.

True. But OBL isn't an innocent human being. Is emprisonning a human being the rest of his life ethical? (I'm sorry if this is a straw man, not sure)

[Huntster]

Quote:
In 2006, Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and professor at the University of Chicago Law School, wrote a book called "Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency." [2] In the book, Posner argues that facing terrorism and the threat of WMDs, the scope of constitutional rights must be adjusted in a pragmatic but rational manner. Using cost-benefit analysis to balance the harm new security measures inflict on personal liberty against the increased security those measures provide, Posner comes down, in most but not quite all respects, on the side of increased government power.
In this citizen's opinion, Posner is an ass.

And it's your right to consider him an ass.

However, after the first WMD goes off in our society will be when we see if he is correct or not, because adjustment of constitutional rights comes with great difficulty (unless your "court" simply interprets things differently).

[Upchurch]

That's a misquote, and the correct attribution is unknown.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Well, obviously I was refering to Richard Jackson as "the master".

heh, heh. :o




Fine, ya got me. :boxedin:

And in any case, note that this quote is different in meaning from yours: the word "essential" is usually dropped when this sentence is "quoted".
Is it that different in this case? What could be more essential to one's liberty then the integrity of their own person? We're not talking about taking away a criminal's ability to walk around in exchange for the rest of society's safety. We're talking about physically and mentally torturing a person into submission.

I would call that pretty damn essential.

[bigred]

And what makes your attititude any different from his? What makes you any more human than him? Nothing apparent to the casual reader.
Gee I don't know, maybe the fact that I didn't mastermind the murder of thousands of innocent people?

[Pardalis]

@Garette

By keeping societal and individual decisions separate.
If I torture to extract the information, I do so in the full knowledge that the society must condemn me. I will be tried, probably convicted, and punished severely.

If the value of the information that may be obtained through the act of torture does not justify my legal punishment for committing the crime of torture, then I have none of the high moral purpose so ardently claimed by those who advocate torture on ever looser grounds.

I have dealt with too many bullies and debated with too many sophists to any longer brook the false assumption of a noble mantle. Torture is wrong. Society can never condone it. If an instance arises in which the failure to torture would result in horrific loss, then the individual with a truly higher moral standing would not object when, for the price of saving many lives, his own life became forfeit.

I think I understand. Are you saying the ultimate decision would have to be an individual decision, and not a societal one, and that the person making that decision is sacrificing him/herself?