I now accept waterboarding

[Darth Rotor]

Kill soldiers on the field of battle, yes they were

And to kill traitors. The British who served in the colonies during the rebellion probably don't see a great deal of the tactics and fighting done by irregulars as "killing soldiers on the field of battle."

I find it pathetic that you attempt to pretty up guerilla warfare into some Marquis de Queensbury ruleset. Sorry, Uppie, only some of the fighters in the revolution were regulars. The rest, along with the regulars, were willing to kill for our freedom. It's about time people admitted that the willingness to kill for freedom is one of the ways one gets it. See also any number of revolutions in South America.

Damned glad they did that, I am.

DR

 

[brumsen]

Like I said, there should be very very strict guidelines for waterboarding. Doctor present, short time frame, etc etc. No one drowns or died from it. And it seems to work.

The question isnt whether "torture works" but "does waterboarding work?" and I believe the answer is yes.

Even if it did work - on which issue I believe you've had plenty of comments to the contrary, by people who seem knowledgeable -
the question whether it works or not simply does not resolve the question whether it is morally acceptable. We could make a very long list of actions which achieve their goal and yet somehow are utterly unacceptable.

You wanna be in the camp of the good guys, act like one.

 

[corplinx]

You wanna be in the camp of the good guys, act like one.

Really? Who are the good guys?

 

[rocketdodger]

You are conveniently forgetting the victim of the torture. (And the fact that said victim might just be innocent.)

I find it rather arrogant to suggest that the torturer would be the one paying the price. Most likely, the torturer will be treated much better than the victim.

Why? Suppose we define the punishment for torture, even for torturing real bad guys, to be an identical torture session visited on the instigator? That would pretty much guarantee that the only time torture is used is are the hypothetical ticking bomb scenarios.

Furthermore, I happen to think that people are justified in behaving like monsters when their loved ones are in imminent mortal danger. If someone tortured me because their family was being held hostage and they thought I was responsible, yeah it would suck while it happened, but in the end I would surely forgive them.

 

[brumsen]

Really? Who are the good guys?

Dunno. But I think I know who want to be.

 

[brumsen]

If someone tortured me because their family was being held hostage and they thought I was responsible, yeah it would suck while it happened, but in the end I would surely forgive them.

Easy to say in the abstract, and perhaps quite a bit harder to do in reality.
And... wouldn't it depend on how warranted they were in thinking this, and what exactly they did to you?

 

[Prometheus]

If someone tortured me because their family was being held hostage and they thought I was responsible, yeah it would suck while it happened, but in the end I would surely forgive them.

How would you feel if they tortured your family instead, because they couldn't find you and thought you might have passed some pertinent information on to them?

 

[Rasmus]

Why? Suppose we define the punishment for torture, even for torturing real bad guys, to be an identical torture session visited on the instigator? That would pretty much guarantee that the only time torture is used is are the hypothetical ticking bomb scenarios.

But that is not currently the case, is it?

Furthermore, I happen to think that people are justified in behaving like monsters when their loved ones are in imminent mortal danger.

I disagree. I may sometimes understand it, but it is not justification.

If someone tortured me because their family was being held hostage and they thought I was responsible, yeah it would suck while it happened, but in the end I would surely forgive them.

Not me.
Whatever may happen to your loved ones has nothing to do with my rights.

What if they killed you? Would that be okay? (Or, indeed, if they killed your family, too, just in case?)

Where do you draw the lines?

Just how much would someone have to love someone else before torture would be advisable? My wife? My children? My great uncle twice removed? My hot, blonde single neighbour whom I have a crush on? Doesn't it bother you to allow those to torture who have the highest emotional investment and are, therefore, likely to be the least rational when it comes to making the decision?

How bad must the situation be? In what types of situation would you be in favour of torturing? (your loved ones being affected is, e.g. entirely different than a threat to the nation.)

Just assuming that their very life needs to be in danger - how urgent does the situation have to be?

And, again, why would a criminal not take all of this into account and ensure that either there is never a justification to torture them, or that they simply cannot change the course of events anymore?

It scares me how easy it is for some people just to give up on their civilisation.

 

[fishbob]

That reply has already been uttered in several variations and lampooned.

You next.

 

[rocketdodger]

Easy to say in the abstract, and perhaps quite a bit harder to do in reality.
And... wouldn't it depend on how warranted they were in thinking this, and what exactly they did to you?

Technically, no. If they were not warranted very well at all, then I would forgive the torture but be very upset with how stupid they were, and furthermore that I had to suffer on account of their stupidity.

I didn't mean I would forgive anyone fully, so if that was the interpretation I apologize.

 

[rocketdodger]

How would you feel if they tortured your family instead, because they couldn't find you and thought you might have passed some pertinent information on to them?

I would be very upset, to say the least, and very likely kill them. As you can see, under my views this kind of scenario gets messy very quickly -- that is why it should be avoided lol.

 

[rocketdodger]

But that is not currently the case, is it?

No. Who said we were talking about reality?

Not me.
Whatever may happen to your loved ones has nothing to do with my rights.

People make mistakes -- that is life.

What if they killed you? Would that be okay? (Or, indeed, if they killed your family, too, just in case?)

See my previous post.

Where do you draw the lines?

Case by case, my friend, case by case. And I wouldn't expect anyone else to behave exactly as I would either. This isn't some perfect rule I am trying to lay down here, it is just the best solution I can think of to the various problems involved with torture. It solves all the ethical problems and leaves room for the ticking bomb scenarios.

It scares me how easy it is for some people just to give up on their civilisation.

Don't be scared, I am trying to simply the definition rather than give up on it. Since I got into A.I. I have been trying to redefine all human behavior in terms of utility functions and that... tends to .... seem uncivilized at first.

 

[Rasmus]

No. Who said we were talking about reality?

I assumed we were. But I would object to the hypothetical as well:

We generally forbid torture.
Then we want to kinda-allow it for very severe cases (saving the nation or your loved ones, e.g.)
And in order to do that, we suddenly also allow torture as a standard punishment for a past crime!

Case by case, my friend, case by case. And I wouldn't expect anyone else to behave exactly as I would either. This isn't some perfect rule I am trying to lay down here, it is just the best solution I can think of to the various problems involved with torture. It solves all the ethical problems and leaves room for the ticking bomb scenarios.

And it is simply not how the law works. Rules have to be established first, then followed.

Don't be scared, I am trying to simply the definition rather than give up on it. Since I got into A.I. I have been trying to redefine all human behavior in terms of utility functions and that... tends to .... seem uncivilized at first.

I've had more than one look, and torture still seems uncivilized to me.

Given the small likeliness of the ticking bomb scenario I also doubt the utility of rules that allow for torture. They are likely to do much more harm than good.

 

[Dan O.]

The ticking time bomb scenario has never existed and therefore will never exist unless it is specifically orchestrated. I challenged BPSCG earlier but he appears to have already buggered off. Does anyone else want to play the role of grand inquisitor?

 

[rocketdodger]

We generally forbid torture.
Then we want to kinda-allow it for very severe cases (saving the nation or your loved ones, e.g.)
And in order to do that, we suddenly also allow torture as a standard punishment for a past crime!

No, I am saying that we should never allow it.

And it is simply not how the law works. Rules have to be established first, then followed.

Yes, but we are not talking about the law here. The law is simple -- if you torture, you get punished very badly. We are talking about the guidlines an individual should use to help them make decision whether or not to break that law.

I've had more than one look, and torture still seems uncivilized to me.

Given the small likeliness of the ticking bomb scenario I also doubt the utility of rules that allow for torture. They are likely to do much more harm than good.

You misunderstand. I am saying that as a group there should be no rules that allow for torture. If an individual finds themselves in a scenario where they think they need to, then they will have to weigh their options and make a choice whether to break the rules or not. This is how all other laws work, no?

 

[Rasmus]

No, I am saying that we should never allow it.

Then your proposed rule is a contradiction in terms.

Yes, but we are not talking about the law here. The law is simple -- if you torture, you get punished very badly. We are talking about the guidlines an individual should use to help them make decision whether or not to break that law.

Are we now?

Okay, then I don't see what situatiuons an individual could encounter that the law should in principle be unable to foresee.

If the law cannot say that "in situation X it is okay to torture", then an individual couldn't either.

You misunderstand.

It seems so.

I am saying that as a group there should be no rules that allow for torture. If an individual finds themselves in a scenario where they think they need to, then they will have to weigh their options and make a choice whether to break the rules or not. This is how all other laws work, no?

Yes. And ideally, the law will be written in such a way that nobody will ever have to break it. So, any situation where one might find it justified to use torture should or could be codified into the law.

But I am no longer sure what you are trying to say.

 

[Dan O.]

Yes. And ideally, the law will be written in such a way that nobody will ever have to break it. So, any situation where one might find it justified to use torture should or could be codified into the law.

No, it can't. As soon as the law is codified to allow an exception for torture you have the possibility the someone could orchestrate a situation that justifies (under the law) the use of torture just like they have with the "make my day" laws. The courts need to be able to assess the whole situation under the broad guidelines of the law and not be forced to accept loopholes.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not sure I really follow you on that one. To the best of my knowledge, they never actually threatened violence against any person in that particular act of protest, just destruction of property.

But you do not need to threaten people to be a terrorist. Destroying property is enough.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well Pomeroo since there is no vocal dissent in those nations it is obvious to the left that what we have here are socialist utopias...and we all know that socialist utopias, being such rare and delicate things, should never be criticised. After all, the ultimate leftist goal is to "fix" the US so that we can have a utopia here too. Other than brutal Stalinist and Maoist dictatorships the left also seems to hold unconditional love for "indigenous peoples" and other (non-Eurocentric) "cultures". When these "peoples" decided to scalp, skin, or roast someone alive you can be sure that it couldn't have been "torture" as torture can only properly be understood to be bad by the educated western mind. Ditto with the routine genital mutilation done to young girls in Arab and/or Islamic lands. It's "cultural" so don't dare call it torture! We must not impose our own values on these people...it's just not fair! No bro, it's just their culture! That makes it all okay! (See Michael Vick and the big-headed-steroid-junkies of MLB....it's a "culture" not a crime!) But when a majority white first world "Euro-centric" nation decides to get tough with some murderous terrorists...getting them wet and scaring them...well hell man that's Bushitler and his corporatenazitorturegoons destroying the good name of America! (Nevermind the tortures "cultural strategies" that our "Native Americans" brethren perpetuated.) Well, I call BS on what is basically just another incarnation of the racism of low expectations. If waterboarding=torture then what exactly do we call it when someone is thrown screaming into a wood chipper or placed on a rack or mangled with thumbscrews etc...etc...etc...??

-z

Now could you actualy demonstrate someone holding that strawman?

Oh and scalping was invented by europeans, but never let facts get in your way.

 

[ponderingturtle]

International Law explicitly forbids the practice of mock executions. Even were waterboarding absolutely harmless in every way (it isn't, it can cause pain and potentially permanent damage to the lungs, for example) it would still be illegal for the simple fact that its effectiveness relies on the prisoner believing they are going to die.

-Gumboot

But international law is like a war crime, it is not something that really exists it just seems to be useful fictions for those with power to do what they want.

Now based on the percived morals of various actions it can effect opion enough to create a meaningful change, but the idea really does not seem to be supported in the abstract.