I now accept waterboarding

[Pardalis]

For the record, I agree, the situation should be highly unlikely - only when lives are at stake, time is of the essence, and there is no other reasonable way to get the information. Torture should absolutely be a last resort. But it shouldn't be off the table entirely.

Yes, we should be willing to fight for our principles. We should be willing to die for our principles.

But we shouldn't have to die because of our principles.

I used to agree with you, but I tend to lean towards Upchurch's point now.

We (Canadians are being accused of allowing torture too in Afghanistan) are supposed to have the moral highground in this conflict. We should uphold our principles, not dismiss them whenever we feel like it, because when we do dismiss them then might as well say their not all that important. It makes them seem weak, it makes us seem weak.

If they are so strongly fundamental as we like ourselves to believe, then yes these principles should be more important than our own lives.

There are always other ways to protect our citizens.

 

[Oliver]

Wow...just...like...

...Wow...

I agree with Joe here. 9/11 didn't hurt Americas reputation
in no way whatsoever.

Waterboarding -on the other hand- does hurt America.
People outside the US lost their trust in America thanks
to that issue. As sad this might be - it's true.

 

[ravdin]

I agree that there are exceptionally rare cases where torture might be useful and justified. My problem is that I doubt the government would use this power wisely if we give our consent. I don't trust the government.

I think we can all agree that under no circumstances should evidence of any kind of coercive interrogation be destroyed, as the CIA did recently. If you're willing to torture someone to save lives, you should also be willing to testify at a hearing, and possibly sacrifice your career or even face jail time.

 

[rocketdodger]

This gets back to what I asked Upchurch: Does the principle of protecting a suspect's civil rights take precedence over the principle of protecting people's lives?

Yes.

I would gladly accept a few more 9/11 scenarios instead of my country accepting torture.

Even a few hundred thousand deaths, I think. I draw the line at a few million -- after that break out the pliers and car batteries.

 

[BPSCG]

Yes.

I would gladly accept a few more 9/11 scenarios instead of my country accepting torture.

Even a few hundred thousand deaths, I think. I draw the line at a few million -- after that break out the pliers and car batteries.

Okay, so you do accept torture. As the punch line to the old joke goes, "We've already established that; now we're just haggling over the price."

You set the price a lot higher than I do. People go on to live rich, fulfilling lives after being tortured (viz John McCain). Very few do after being killed.

Let's see if your price is negotiable. Your mother, father, sister, and brother will all be killed in a bomb explosion in ten minutes. Tied up in a chair in front of me is a guy who I know has the information about where the bomb is located. He laughs at me when I demand to know where the bomb is.

Should I start torturing him for the information? Are his civil rights more important than your family's lives?

You now have nine minutes and forty-three seconds.

 

[Rasmus]

Okay, so you do accept torture. As the punch line to the old joke goes, "We've already established that; now we're just haggling over the price."

You set the price a lot higher than I do. People go on to live rich, fulfilling lives after being tortured (viz John McCain). Very few do after being killed.

Let's see if your price is negotiable. Your mother, father, sister, and brother will all be killed in a bomb explosion in ten minutes. Tied up in a chair in front of me is a guy who I know has the information about where the bomb is located. He laughs at me when I demand to know where the bomb is.

Should I start torturing him for the information? Are his civil rights more important than your family's lives?

You now have nine minutes and forty-three seconds.

I'll use that time to listen to your explanation as to why you know with absolute certainty that the guy is able to reveal information that might save my family.

And after that I still won't let you torture him.

 

[JoeEllison]

I agree with Joe here. 9/11 didn't hurt Americas reputation
in no way whatsoever.

Waterboarding -on the other hand- does hurt America.
People outside the US lost their trust in America thanks
to that issue. As sad this might be - it's true.

It also didn't do any damage to our laws, our principles, our ideas, or our way of life. It was a horrible tragedy that killed thousands and affected New Yorkers a whole lot. It didn't do anything to damage America as a whole... because blowing up a building can't destroy America. We're much more likely to destroy ourselves, from within, in part by giving into the sort of cowardice that declares that our laws suddenly become meaningless because now a lot of people are peeing their pants in fear.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Perhaps you should have continued reading the rest of Upchurch's post, where he essentially withdrew that claim ("Of course, that isn't the case.") and we went on to discuss the actual matter at hand, which is having a suspect withholding information that can save - or kill - thousands of people.

Doesn't this hold equaly true of POWs in wars between nation states? They could well have information that can save and kill thousands of people. So tortureing them would seem to make the most sense.

 

[shadron]

The first principle of every man is, or should be, defend your own life, and the lives of your loved ones. The principles of life, liberty, and defense of justice are all important, but are nonetheless subordinate to that one.

OK, I can agree with that. While I'm not the physical type, I'll believe that I would defend my family to the death in an exigency that puts them to risk; I can even imagine committing cold blooded murder, or torturing someone to keep them safe. So you win that argument.

Now, the realistic sort of thing that happens is the torture of a presumed terrorist to get information about a plane bomb. Assuming the threat is real (a big assumption), can I use your priorities as stated above to justify torturing said suspected terrorist? Hell, I'm not even sure I can justify allowing the state through the full action of the judiciary to do that. The people on the plane aren't my family (or haven't been in any real situation I know of). Do I then have the right to torture, balancing not wanting American lives to be lost and not wanting the resulting political embarrassment of the reigning president, as opposed to giving up "principles of life, liberty, and defense of justice", not to speak of setting a gruesome precedent/tradition?

I've talked to many WWII marines who admitted that Japanese officers were, sometimes, given a choice between telling about tactical plans of the next day or two in exchange for not dying, and sometimes carrying out that sentence on the spot. I can understand that, though it makes me uncomfortable. In their situation, I would hope I could do the same, my feelings to the contrary notwithstanding.

<warning: maudlin ahead>

How many people out there read or watched "Stalag 17", or "The Great Escape", and didn't cringe at the casual cruelties of the Germans on their prisoners depicted and thought, "Well, at least we don't do that"? And we didn't, in World War II. The few Japanese and Germans who made it to POW camps in the US were no worse treated, AFAIK, then criminals in federal prisons (understanding some prisons are hell-holes, most are not). Now, we know that that is no longer the case. The US has admitted to torturing people, and I for one, regret that it is no longer the case that I can feel good that "our side" doesn't do that. Perhaps it was a false innocence, but it was something to be quietly proud of that is a certain casualty of our times.

Perhaps that makes me a "weak American" in certain circles. So be it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I acknowledged that torture should be extremely rare - only as an absolute last resort, and only where it is necessary to save innocent lives. I believe such cases are extremely rare, so torture should also be extremely rare. But please don't insult everyone's intelligence by saying that there is no conceivable circumstance where it could be the the only way to get the information you need to save people's lives.

The problem here is that you need a ridiculously absurd set of situations for this to make any sense. You need very good evidence that the person has information about an attack, very good evidence that the attack will occur. You by definition would need enough evidence to convict this person of serious crimes.

Otherwise you need to torture a lot of people find out if such an attack will occur.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let's see if your price is negotiable. Your mother, father, sister, and brother will all be killed in a bomb explosion in ten minutes. Tied up in a chair in front of me is a guy who I know has the information about where the bomb is located. He laughs at me when I demand to know where the bomb is.

Should I start torturing him for the information? Are his civil rights more important than your family's lives?

Then you find out this was the room mate of the guy who set the thing up knew nothing about it but at least you hurt someone.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've talked to many WWII marines who admitted that Japanese officers were, sometimes, given a choice between telling about tactical plans of the next day or two in exchange for not dying, and sometimes carrying out that sentence on the spot. I can understand that, though it makes me uncomfortable. In their situation, I would hope I could do the same, my feelings to the contrary notwithstanding.

And if torture is acceptable to save American lives that should be held up as the proper action and way to deal with prisoners. Well they do not seem to go far enough.

Of course there is the counter argument that for example in the European front they with promises of not doing things like that got people to surrender and volunteer such information.

So really the best solution is to have a reputation for not torturing people and torturing lots people.

 

[corplinx]

An ex-seal I was listening to went through waterboarding. He said it was horrible and reduced him to crying. But he's alive, well, and happy now. But he did say he wouldn't wish it on anyone, even a terrorist.

That said, I don't really care about the temporary horror of being waterboarded or how the person feels. "How would you like if it was done to you" doesn't carry weight with me. I'm not a christian and don't follow the "golden rule" religiously. I would hate being waterboarded. I would also hate to be raped in a US prison but I don't try to derail criminal prosecutions because I don't like who the president is right now.

The question I have is does the procedure work and how do we ensure it is safe, legal, and rare if it does work. Its a short procedure that breaks people immediately and leaves no lasting harm. If it works, use it (if its legal to do so).

 

[Rasmus]

This makes me wonder - if I was a terrorist I would just have to ensure that nobody who could reasonably be captured knows anything of value that they might let out - with or without torture. How difficult could that be? (Especially if I had to assume that people would be tortured.)

 

[rocketdodger]

Should I start torturing him for the information? Are his civil rights more important than your family's lives?

You now have nine minutes and forty-three seconds.

Yes, shock his testicles, please. I would gladly torture anyone who poses such a threat to the people I know in order to remove the threat.

I vehemently oppose, however, the torture of people who pose a similar threat to anyone else.

That is the thrust of my argument (which you must have heard before in one form or another) -- the loss of lives a citizen has no emotional connection with is less damaging than the loss of moral pride.

I am not saying nobody should ever torture anyone -- that is absurd. I am simply saying that officially torture should be prohibited and officially anyone who engages in it should be punished. This position leaves room for the ticking bomb scenarios while getting rid of the Abu-Gharaib scenarios. Win-win.

 

[BPSCG]

I'll use that time to listen to your explanation as to why you know with absolute certainty that the guy is able to reveal information that might save my family.

Why must I have "absolute certainty"? That's reserved for his trial for conspiracy to commit murder (if you get the information out of him in time) or for actual murder (if you don't). Police don't need "absolute certainty" to question a suspect, arrest him, or hold him. You, like others before you are confusing this with the criminal proceedings that occur after the crime. The question before us is how extreme should the interrogation methods be allowed to get?

But okay. He has your mother's purse, your father's wallet, your brother's pinky, your sister's ear, a stick of dynamite, and his diary with today's entry saying, "Blow up Rasmus's family." Is that "absolutely certain" enough for you?

And after that I still won't let you torture him.

Okay.

Howabout you share this post with your family?

 

[BPSCG]

It also didn't do any damage to our laws, our principles, our ideas, or our way of life. It was a horrible tragedy that killed thousands

But it didn't affect their way of life. Gotcha.

Oh, you mean it didn't affect the day-to-day lives of the (surviving) people in our country as a whole. You're right. Getting on an airplane is just as easy and carefree as it always was.

 

[corplinx]

the loss of lives a citizen has no emotional connection with is less damaging than the loss of moral pride.

What moral pride? Is that some new irrational thing were believing in to be against something?

 

[JoeEllison]

I asked this question in another thread on the subject: Say the torture does seem justified to you... after the torture, do you immediately turn yourself in for war crimes and possible execution?

 

[corplinx]

Waterboarding -on the other hand- does hurt America.
People outside the US lost their trust in America thanks
to that issue. As sad this might be - it's true.

Yeah, all those america hating hippies and commies that hated america before but trusted us now no longer trust us.

Oh, and according to Oliver, their foreign counterparts as well.