Waterboarding Rocks!

[BeAChooser]

Rule of Law is an abstract concept.

That's certainly true. That's why different countries can have vastly different laws. That's why laws can be very flawed. That's why we should be very careful about putting law above individual conscience and one's views of "good" and "evil" in ANY circumstance. That's why we have to be careful that our laws don't discourage truly legitimate and moral actions by those defending us from truly evil people. That's why when it comes to fighting wars, soldiers are allowed to harm others without risk of trial in most instances. Because in that situation, a judgement has been made that ruling all killing illegal would intimidate those soldiers and possibly cost one victory in battle. Now, we are fighting an enemy of a different sort, using soldiers of a different sort, and we need to address the same issue ... rather than avoid it ... which liberals seem to be doing.

The important point, that you just don't seem to get, is that it doesn't matter in the slightest what I or you or anyone else thinks they would do under some arbitrary set of hypothetical conditions. The law has to be generally applicable even though it's always possible that it won't be able to adequately handle some specific set of circumstances.

It ALWAYS matters what one thinks. You have to live with yourself. And the law can affect your behavior. It can intimidate you into non-action when you really needed to have acted to save as many lives as have been lost in some wars. There are people out there who really would choose to do nothing because of fear of prosecution ... even though in their hearts they would admit that letting a hundred thousand die rather than inflict a little pain on one person is the morally wrong thing to do.

Were I to find myself in the position you described I would attempt anything and everything I could think of in order to get the information I thought was being withheld.

Good for you. You've shown you are rational.

In doing so, I would be acting illegally, and I would expect to face a judge and jury and accept punishment as a result.

I agree. So would I, given the current state of the law.

Under no circumstances whatsoever, would I claim that the law should be changed to allow me not to face trial.

But then why is a soldier on the battle field any different. I would presume that in my hypothetical you would be acting in the capacity of an authorized defender of national security. A soldier of sorts. Obviously, if that person you tortured was indeed involved in the plot he would necessarily be an enemy combatant. Since when do nations try soldiers for hurting enemy combatants who are attempting to kill friendlies? Maybe the law is lagging behind the reality of the world today?

That I would be punished for committing a crime in the belief that I was saving lives (regardless of whether or not I was correct, or my attempt was successful) is just my bad luck to have gotten stuck in such a morally intractable situation.

I don't think under the described circumstances you would be punished. I think the court would discover an instance where the people say the law is wrong. And that might result in changes to the law. Perhaps a more rational one.

 

[BeAChooser]

We are NOT discussing "a little" pain. I've told you this before, and yet you continue to mischaracterize torture as "a little" pain.

Compared to the killing of hundred thousand people? Yes, it's a little pain.

 

[BeAChooser]

You claim the only choices are to commit torture or to sit back and do nothing.

But in some cases that is going to be your only choice if you really want to obtain the information that will save a hundred thousand lives.

 

[Texas]

Yeah. The torture advocates are pretty much utterly and completely wrong in every single way one can be wrong.

This is what he said in 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603274.html

Coddling Terrorists In Yemen



By Ali H. Soufan
Saturday, May 17, 2008; Page A17

Seven years after al-Qaeda terrorists Jamal al-Badawi and Fahd al-Quso confessed to me their crucial involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole, and three years after they were convicted in a Yemeni court -- where a judge imposed a death sentence on Badawi -- they, along with many other al-Qaeda terrorists, are free. On Oct. 12, 2000, when I flew to Yemen to lead the FBI's Cole investigation, I had no idea how uncooperative the Yemeni government would initially be. Nor could I have imagined how disconnected from reality the U.S. ambassador to Yemen then, Barbara K. Bodine, would prove.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

See how slippery the slope gets once you legitimize torture?

I think under the Bush administration we saw how far this kind of calculus could go. He was willing to sacrifice the lives of 4,275 Americans, some 300 or so "Coalition Members" and anywhere from 99,000 to upwards of a million Iraqis in order to take out Saddam Hussein.

Sorry--a bit of a derail from torture itself, but the invasion and occupation of Iraq is intimately connected to torture during the Bush administration.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But in some cases that is going to be your only choice if you really want to obtain the information that will save a hundred thousand lives.

Nope. It's a false dichotomy. In the universe of possible actions, it's wrong to say your choice is to torture someone or to do nothing whatsoever. That is simply never true.

 

[BeAChooser]

Even if you believe torture is justified in extremely rare situations (like those you described in your hypotheticals), allowing for that will open the door for government officials to justify it whenever they feel like it.

I view that as mindless hysteria.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Compared to the killing of hundred thousand people? Yes, it's a little pain.

If what you're talking about is "a little pain" then you're not talking about torture. The topic is torture, which is by definition "severe pain". I think you are indeed talking about severe pain, but you're trying to minimize it by referring to it as a "little pain".

That's hardly fair argumentation.

 

[Texas]

If what you're talking about is "a little pain" then you're not talking about torture. The topic is torture, which is by definition "severe pain". I think you are indeed talking about severe pain, but you're trying to minimize it by referring to it as a "little pain".

That's hardly fair argumentation.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834


This is from a vet that was water tortured by the Japanese using a water faucet pouring water into him until he passed out over a period of 2 hours:

.

Was it painful?

Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious — like drowning in the water.

Like you were drowning?

Drowning. You could hardly breathe.

 

[Spinelli]

This idea of "values" is and has never been part of US foreign policy.

This is important b/c it ultimately bridges many gaps and we are now in the room that enemies can actually speak with one another - the notion of values.

The Sunday school version of values (over simplified - but apt) is stripped of merit because it posits a weak strategy - American Justice-law-jurisprudence - diplomacy VS. Might! In order to defeat evil - we must for a time become as evil.

Dropping the gloves is fine - especially with a big audience to cheer one on - especially when the combatants are willing to die for the preservation of the values.

But if Sunday school, and (therefore) notions of absolute right/wrong do not belong in a discussion about US torture policy then I for one must confess that this is a hopeless position. Why negotiate anything? It is faster just to get my way and eradicate the opposition.

Do I trust my leaders to pull me back up? No. They encouraged the descent in the first place.

Do you see my problem with invoking your argument? For me - it is a hopeless loop.

How then - once one has descended to the visceral - does one climb back up - to which authority can I call to for guidance out of the abyss of more fighting and yet more death?

To say that the foreign Policy of the US does not employ an aspect of the good old fashioned Sunday School is simply fallacious - if the US were not the beacon of Freedom (a very value laden Sunday School type notion) to perhaps Billions of others, then perhaps. But we are and will always be so - now rather than die for a nation that embodies freedom - we are asked to lie for a nation that embodies torture.


Ultimately tho - your comment entertains the notion of the authority of a good old fashioned beating.

 

[Texas]

I assume it's because we could, and since we could capture him, to just kill him would have been murder. (You know, lack of due process and all that. In our system of government, the executive branch--the police and such-- does not try people for crimes. We've got a judiciary for that. Just killing a suspected criminal when you can take them alive would be illegal.)

What does this have to do with my comment that you quoted? BaC keeps using the phrase "a little pain" when the subject here is torture which is by definition "severe pain".

It couldn't be that he was more valuable intelligence wise alive rather than dead? Nah we just wanted to torture him right? Obama doesn't even try he just sends drones into an allied country kills guys like KSM in their sleep and any women or kids that may be around. Should Obama be indicted for murder?

 

[BeAChooser]

This was a case of a non-terrorist being tortured to death.

As I said, I don't think in that case the person should have been treated in that manner because the stakes weren't high enough to justify it. I'll agree for a starting point that the potential death of a few soldiers in a mortar attack in war zone is not reason enough. Can you agree that the potential death of several hundred thousand people in New York City is enough? Then perhaps we can narrow the gap.

Oh yeah, let's not forget Bush lying to the public saying that we do not torture.

Yeah I know you don't like Bush. You probably think Obama is a *change* for the better (despite his associations with terrorists and the far left). Maybe you even thought Clinton saintly. I'm not going to argue with you any more. I've determined your lack of moral clarity. You want to prosecute. Fine. Just make sure you prosecute ALL crimes ... not just the ones committed by one party. That's fine with me.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Let's be clear again ... you seem to be equating the DEATH of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of totally INNOCENT people to inflicting severe (and note I said non-lethal) mental or physical PAIN on ONE probably GUILTY individual.

When did I do that? ... snip ... My position is that the end does not justify the means. ... snip .... I think a far better solution is the laws we currently have, agreed to by most of the world. No torture under any circumstances.

 

[Pardalis]

despite his associations with terrorists

Oh please...

 

[Texas]

This is important b/c it ultimately bridges many gaps and we are now in the room that enemies can actually speak with one another - the notion of values.

The Sunday school version of values (over simplified - but apt) is stripped of merit because it posits a weak strategy - American Justice-law-jurisprudence - diplomacy VS. Might! In order to defeat evil - we must for a time become as evil.

Dropping the gloves is fine - especially with a big audience to cheer one on - especially when the combatants are willing to die for the preservation of the values.

But if Sunday school, and (therefore) notions of absolute right/wrong do not belong in a discussion about US torture policy then I for one must confess that this is a hopeless position. Why negotiate anything? It is faster just to get my way and eradicate the opposition.

Do I trust my leaders to pull me back up? No. They encouraged the descent in the first place.

Do you see my problem with invoking your argument? For me - it is a hopeless loop.

How then - once one has descended to the visceral - does one climb back up - to which authority can I call to for guidance out of the abyss of more fighting and yet more death?

To say that the foreign Policy of the US does not employ an aspect of the good old fashioned Sunday School is simply fallacious - if the US were not the beacon of Freedom (a very value laden Sunday School type notion) to perhaps Billions of others, then perhaps. But we are and will always be so - now rather than die for a nation that embodies freedom - we are asked to lie for a nation that embodies torture.


Ultimately tho - your comment entertains the notion of the authority of a good old fashioned beating.

Well aside from your prolixity how do you explain Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the fire bombing of Tokyo or Dresden etc? You cannot be serious in your belief that in a time of war that the United States has not completely gone medieval on our enemies. can you? War is barbaric, bloody and inhumane. The only thing that matters in the end is who was willing to win at ANY cost and to revert to civilisation once the enemy has been defeated.

 

[BeAChooser]

It is my opinion still that there exists no way in the world that human or natural laws support "TORTURE"

Which to me means you see moral equivalence between non-lethally hurting a person and killing hundreds of thousands of people under the situation I described. I can only shake my head.

 

[Upchurch]

Ah ... so we have another who sees moral equivalence in hurting one person and killing hundreds of thousands.

Not at all.

 

[BeAChooser]

I operate under the assumptions that humans are all human.

But are all human (and human groupings) equally evil? Equally moral? If you see no difference between a person in one group inflicting pain on one person and a person in another group killing a hundred thousand people, I think you do think they are all equally evil ... equally moral. Which is ludicrous.

 

[Pardalis]

Someone posted a link the other day that said KSM was waterboarded 266 times. Was that confirmed?

After how many times did he start to talk? 266 times seems a lot, my guess is that if that technique worked, they wouldn't have needed to use it no more than a couple of times, right?

 

[BeAChooser]

Yeah. The torture advocates are pretty much utterly and completely wrong in every single way one can be wrong.

So Peephole, would you inflict pain on one guilty individual to prevent the death of 100,000 innocent people?