Waterboarding Rocks!

[Lonewulf]

Did you miss the part where they weren't just soldiers, but interrogated Nazis for wartime intelligence? Do you think that gives them just a wee bit more perspective on "useful and moral techniques for gathering data in a war to the knife against a brutal and implacable enemy"?

I think that Cicero actually believes that interrogators of Nazis were just picked by random out of a hat

 

[BeAChooser]

Another selection:

Quote:
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.

ROTFLOL! So Upchurch, are you recommending that our interrogators spend the last two hours, before the nuclear bomb goes off and kills a hundred thousand innocent Americans, playing chess with the person who knows where the bomb is but won't say? Or is that just what YOU would do?

 

[A'isha]

ROTFLOL! So Upchurch, are you recommending that our interrogators spend the last two hours, before the nuclear bomb goes off and kills a hundred thousand innocent Americans, playing chess with the person who knows where the bomb is but won't say? Or is that just what YOU would do?

This is where I post the facepalm picture, right?

 

[BeAChooser]

So, Praktik, I see that you too will go to any length to justify your views about the moral equivalence of all evil.

 

[Upchurch]

ROTFLOL! So Upchurch, are you recommending that our interrogators spend the last two hours, before the nuclear bomb goes off and kills a hundred thousand innocent Americans, playing chess with the person who knows where the bomb is but won't say?

When...

When...

When has this ever been the case? Of the three people waterboarded, did any of them have critical information that was needed in a matter of hours or risk that level of destruction?

 

[Cicero]

That gets to the heart of the moral equivalence issue. I don't think most of the folks on the other side of this issue do see any difference between temporary pain and discomfort, and breaking bones or killing someone. Which shows how insane the left has become.

Hitchens remarked about this notion to Brian Lamb on Sunday's C-SPAN. His point was that if you allow waterboarding, "then what is to stop you from saying we will bring on the red hot poker or the pincers?"

I don't think Hitchens wanted to experience the red hot poker or the pincers.

 

[BeAChooser]

Right, but if they had intelligence about an upcoming WMD attack, would that make the torture used to find out about the specifics of that attack legitimate?

Pratik also sees no moral difference between the objectives of the US and those of the Japanese in that war. His moral compass is completely broken.

 

[Lonewulf]

ROTFLOL! So Upchurch, are you recommending that our interrogators spend the last two hours, before the nuclear bomb goes off and kills a hundred thousand innocent Americans, playing chess with the person who knows where the bomb is but won't say? Or is that just what YOU would do?

 

[Lonewulf]

Pratik also sees no moral difference between the objectives of the US and those of the Japanese in that war. His moral compass is completely broken.

No, you're the one that's totally failed to comprehend the point.

Every side believes that they're in the right. Every side.

 

[A'isha]

Pratik also sees no moral difference between the objectives of the US and those of the Japanese in that war. His moral compass is completely broken.

So, anything is justifiable, as long as your motives are pure?

 

[Cicero]

I think that Cicero actually believes that interrogators of Nazis were just picked by random out of a hat

No. But there were only two pilots who commanded the missions that dropped two A-Bombs on Japan. Since they had no problem with what they did, do those who criticize them have any standing since they never dropped any Atom Bombs?

Just because some of the WWII interrogators of Germans expressed their abhorrence to the CIA waterboarding three detainees, it does not mean that the rest of the WWII veterans, or civilians, who do not share their opinions are automatically proven wrong.

 

[A'isha]

No. But there were only two pilots who commanded the missions that dropped two A-Bombs on Japan. Since they had no problem with what they did, do those who criticize them have any standing since they never dropped any Atom Bombs?

Just because some of the WWII interrogators of Germans expressed their abhorrence to the CIA waterboarding three detainees, it does not mean that the rest of the WWII veterans, or civilians, who do not share their opinions are automatically proven wrong.

That is, I believe, the worst analogy I have ever seen.

 

[Praktik]

Pratik also sees no moral difference between the objectives of the US and those of the Japanese in that war. His moral compass is completely broken.

I don't think there would be anything morally questionable about the Japanese wanting to prevent an upcoming WMD attack on their cities - or is self-defense only allowed for your side? This is not to say that I don't recognize the horrors of Japanese occupation, the rape of Nanking being just one of many horrible examples.

But at that point of the war they were beaten back to their homeland - and I believe every nation has a right and moral obligation to defend their homeland and the civilians living in it.

Now I would have a moral problem with them torturing for that information - but I would still at least understand their motives even if I think the individuals responsible for such torture should have been punished to the full extent of the law for doing so. You on the other hand should have noted in this thread that you would have supported them torturing American servicemen they suspected had knowledge of an impending WMD attack - after all, they wanted to save "hundreds of thousands of lives" - at least you would if you were morally consistent. Or is this a whiff of "moral relativism" I see here? Only Americans are allowed to employ torture to protect "hundreds of thousands of lives"?

Your fantasies regarding your imaginings of my moral compass are noted and disregarded.

 

[tsig]

What are saying? That you wouldn't apply non-lethal pain to a prisoner even if you believed it could save a hundred thousand lives or perhaps even a few billion lives? If so, I not sure you should be lecturing me on morals.

It wasn't a lecture but a question which you answered with a question.

 

[BeAChooser]

I've seen people on "my side" here answer this hypothetical in one of two ways, neither of which I would characterize as "chickening out".

#1: They would do it, and then put themselves at the mercy of the law.

#2: They still wouldn't do it.

Maybe you don't like these answers, and thus cast them in an unfavourable light as a result. To me they are both legitimate.

Well I'd agree neither is chickening out. I was referring to the many who have refused to answer by question period. As to the answers being legitimate, certainly the first one does show moral clarity. That person understands that there is a moral difference between inflicting temporary pain and killing someone, much less killing hundreds of thousands. But the second response is not legitimate. It shows a lack of moral clarity. It shows the insanity of the left. So which of the two would you choose? The one where 100,000 people might live or the one where that's unlikely. Now don't chicken out.

 

[tsig]

Here you go folks. Yet another (likely liberal) member of JREF who would let the human race be murdered by the billions rather than apply non-lethal, temporary pain and discomfort to one individual even if he suspected that person had information that could prevent that global murder. Such is the insanity of the left and Obama's followers.

If the only way to save the universe is to inflict pain on helpless people then the universe is not worth saving.

 

[Praktik]

Well I'd agree neither is chickening out. I was referring to the many who have refused to answer by question period. As to the answers being legitimate, certainly the first one does show moral clarity. That person understands that there is a moral difference between inflicting temporary pain and killing someone, much less killing hundreds of thousands. But the second response is not legitimate. It shows a lack of moral clarity. It shows the insanity of the left. So which of the two would you choose? The one where 100,000 people might live or the one where that's unlikely. Now don't chicken out.

Well we disagree on the 2nd example: I think its perfectly legitimate. But we don't need to rehash the same things that have been already said in this thread regarding that.

Me personally? I don't think I could personally torture anyone, under any circumstances.

I've never even been in a fight.

Now if I was in a position of authority would I order it to be done?

No, because I wouldn't want to set a precedent that the next person in my role as a public servant could disregard the rules whenever they decided an objective was pressing enough.

Who knows how wide that loophole would become down the line. We also don't know whether other methods could work, even in a short time frame.

Hidden in your hypothetical is the premise that other methods will not work for sure - and I dont agree with that. But if I were to accept it as true as part of the thought experiment I'd still say no, for the reasons given.

 

[Upchurch]

Just because some of the WWII interrogators of Germans expressed their abhorrence to the CIA waterboarding three detainees, it does not mean that the rest of the WWII veterans, or civilians, who do not share their opinions are automatically proven wrong.

You misunderstand the importance of what these men were saying.

These veterans had the same job to do during a worse period of our history. They are speaking not of preference, but out of experience. Their opinion does out weight those vets who were not interrogators because they are speaking with authority on the subject. And they say that torture is not only not necessary, but not as effective and degrading to the honor of the US.

They did what you and BAC seem to think is impossible: both saving lives and upholding the moral high ground at the same time.

A hundred of you two aren't worth one of them.

 

[BeAChooser]

Mmmm...thick, rich, delicious, creamy hypocrisy.

Says the guy who would let a hundred thousand people die, when all he might have to do is waterboard a single probably guilty person.

 

[tsig]

But that only kept us safe from real things. Nothing will keep us safe from the imaginary things inside BeAChooser's head, except agreeing with him about whatever his point is.

Careful with agreeing, remember only torture produces truth so he might want some pain with your testimony.