Merged Senate Report on CIA Torture Program

sunmaster14 said:
As usual, people love to jump to conclusions without knowing anything about the topic. The discussion that Crossbow referenced begins roughly here.

I have consistently believed that the most severe interrogation techniques employed by the CIA do amount to torture and are covered by the Torture Convention.

I don't know why people can't do even a little bit of review of the discussion before weighing in. Well, actually I do know, but it isn't a shining example of critical thinking.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, you're trying to talk about some hypothetical theoretical reality where, given the right set of circumstances, torture might be justified.

Good luck with that.
 
sunmaster14 said:
As usual, people love to jump to conclusions without knowing anything about the topic. The discussion that Crossbow referenced begins roughly here.

I have consistently believed that the most severe interrogation techniques employed by the CIA do amount to torture and are covered by the Torture Convention.

I don't know why people can't do even a little bit of review of the discussion before weighing in. Well, actually I do know, but it isn't a shining example of critical thinking.
Click to expand...

Then your points, within the context of the discussion, are moot.

It is established fact that the CIA at the behest of the the US government undertook torture in contravention of international agreements.

Any equivocation about what is and is not torture is, at this point, entirely irrelevant. Any equivocation over the necessity and efficacy of torture is irrelevant. The only question remaining to be answered is:

Is the US going to meet it's obligations and prosecute and incarcerate those who undertook and those who ordered torture in the name of the people of the USA?
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
Yes, I know, you're trying to talk about some hypothetical theoretical reality where, given the right set of circumstances, torture might be justified.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Really, my main argument is that the level of moral (p)outrage over torturing a handful of terrorists is over the top. And inconsistent with other moral outrages which have transpired in the past and which continue to this day. I think much of the outrage is driven by partisan concerns.
 
3point14 said:
Then your points, within the context of the discussion, are moot.

It is established fact that the CIA at the behest of the the US government undertook torture in contravention of international agreements.

Any equivocation about what is and is not torture is, at this point, entirely irrelevant. Any equivocation over the necessity and efficacy of torture is irrelevant. The only question remaining to be answered is:

Is the US going to meet it's obligations and prosecute and incarcerate those who undertook and those who ordered torture in the name of the people of the USA?
Click to expand...

Well, I think there are other interesting questions to discuss here, and I'll continue to raise them, but the answer to your question is no. Furthermore, if I were President, the answer would still be no.
 
Cleon said:
Yes, I know, you're trying to talk about some hypothetical theoretical reality where, given the right set of circumstances, torture might be justified.
Click to expand...
Given the debasing nature of torture, given that it strikes at the heart of our constitutional rights, given that it has been shown ineffective, given that even if we grant extreme scenarios that are so unlikely that we have no real world examples but must rely on hypothetical for some rationalization for torture, then the best strategy is to inveigh against torture.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Really, my main argument is that the level of moral (p)outrage over torturing a handful of terrorists is over the top.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the ones that weren't terrorists, though I recall that you magically downgraded their torture to "mistreatment." Because you're all about critical thinking.

And inconsistent with other moral outrages which have transpired in the past and which continue to this day. I think much of the outrage is driven by partisan concerns.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. The concept that some of us are outraged (sorry, (p) outraged :rolleyes:) because our government has committed crimes that we normally attribute to evil regimes and individuals is completely lost on you.

And I'm sure that your willingness to overlook/excuse torture has nothing to do with partisan concerns whatsoever.
 
RandFan said:
Given the debasing nature of torture, given that it strikes at the heart of our constitutional rights, given that it has been shown ineffective, given that even if we grant extreme scenarios that are so unlikely that we have no real world examples but must rely on hypothetical for some rationalization for torture, then the best strategy is to inveigh against torture.
Click to expand...

You know, I've let you slide on this among all the other back and forth, but what is it about torturing foreign, unlawful combatants on foreign soil that strikes at the heart of our constitutional rights? Constitutional rights only apply to permanent US residents, US citizens, and people inside the US. Exactly how does such torture strike at our constitutional rights in a way, for example, that Obama's killing of a US citizen by drone missile does not.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, I think there are other interesting questions to discuss here, and I'll continue to raise them, but the answer to your question is no. Furthermore, if I were President, the answer would still be no.
Click to expand...

Then you'll forgive me if I have no respect at all for any moral (or indeed legal, as you seem to disregard contract at will) judgements you may issue in the past or in the future.

Your attitude places your contry in the position of only being able to influence the rest of the world by force and not with diplomacy as those in negotiaion with the US will only do so out of fear. They will not do so simply for the benefits of the agreement as you, and your leaders, believe that agreements signed are only for the other side to adhere to.

It's an old concept, one held high by military insitiutions all over the world, I understand that the USMC particularly treasure theirs but gone from the USA is any notion of honour. There is none left there.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Constitutional rights only apply to permanent US residents, US citizens, and people inside the US.
Click to expand...

Remember when Conservatives used to complain about "Big Government" and explained that the Constitution was about limiting government, not the rights of people?

My, how things change.
 
sunmaster14 said:
You know, I've let you slide on this among all the other back and forth, but what is it about torturing foreign, unlawful combatants on foreign soil that strikes at the heart of our constitutional rights? Constitutional rights only apply to permanent US residents, US citizens, and people inside the US. Exactly how does such torture strike at our constitutional rights in a way, for example, that Obama's killing of a US citizen by drone missile does not.
Click to expand...

A right that you reserve for yourself but deny others is not in fact a right. It's a privilege.

See the Eight Amendment.

I've already spoken out against extra-judicial execution.
 
Cleon said:
Don't forget the ones that weren't terrorists, though I recall that you magically downgraded their torture to "mistreatment." Because you're all about critical thinking.
Click to expand...

No, I did that because I don't know enough about how they were treated. I consider waterboarding to be torture, and I know that only three people were waterboarded, and all three were pretty certain to be terrorists. I'm sure that some of the other techniques, used for prolonged duration, or frequently, or in combination could easily have amounted to torture, but I just don't know enough about any individual cases.

<snip>

And I'm sure that your willingness to overlook/excuse torture has nothing to do with partisan concerns whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Well, I think I've been pretty forthright that I'm partisan, but that I try not to be partisan on this forum (what's the point?). Which is not to say that I don't have subconscious partisan bias. But I think I am not being partisan on this issue. For example, I believe Obama's drone killings are both immoral and illegal, and should end, but I would not support prosecuting him or anybody else with respect to them.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It is natural and logical to legalize that which is morally permissible. The entire last section of the paper is dedicated to the proposition that it is not necessary to make our legal and moral systems coincide. That it is ok for some things which are morally permissible to be deemed illegal, even though that would strike many people as unjust. That was the relatively unique argument that the author was making. His two contributions are: (1) torture may be morally permissible in some instances; and (2) that which is morally permissible should still be kept illegal because it would be bad policy to try to make it legal.



Routine <> legal/institutionalized. It simply isn't true in general, and it isn't true for the purposes of this paper. In fact, one of the legalization advocate arguments he attacks is the claim that keeping torture murder illegal will make it more routine because it will be kept in the shadows.
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
sunmaster14 said:
First I want you to fall into my trap. Explain to me how an effective interrogation would work.
Click to expand...
No. You're shifting the burden and attempting to change the subject. Again.

Doesn't it raise any red-flags in your mind that you can't support your claim without relying on logical fallacies?

The intellectually honest thing to do would be to retract or modify your claim to something you can defend. If you are not going to support your claim, it can be safely disregarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom