• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why not torture?

Mirrorglass said:
Well, you are basically saying that if I am to condone torture in any situation, I must condone excessive use of torture, because some other person has done that. It's not a good argument, and I don't see a need to deal with it.
Click to expand...

The argument you are putting forward is in no way new or original. The "ticking time bomb" stalking horse has been the staple of the pro-torture lobby since it's first steps as far as I can recall.

However "legalised" torture has never been limited to that stalking-horse situation. Once the stalking horse has tested the water, the real agenda comes out which is secret torture with no oversight, "extraordinary rendition", and ice-packed corpses being given the thumbs up.

So no, I'm not saying that you must condone torture in any situation. I'm saying that your "ticking time bomb" argument is rarely advanced in good faith, and on the rare occasion that it is the people putting it forward are, in my view, naive fellow travellers with some of the vilest criminals on Earth.

I also don't like the idea that the law can simply be disregarded in special circumstances. If there is such a circumstance, then there should be an amendment to the law; otherwise, it will be just the personal opinion of the judge that settles who has the right to use torture and in what situation. What you are suggesting does not differ from changing the law - it would still give people the chance to torture without punishment in special cases - but it would make the punishments (or lack thereof) inconsistent.
Click to expand...

Then they can get a Presidential pardon. I don't care, frankly. If it saves thousands of lives then they should do it even if it lands them in the clink - at least they won't be tortured to death while they are in there.

Biological warfare saves lives? That's the first I've heard of it.
Click to expand...

It's called a hypothetical.

Ah yes, the "you must be a bad person" argument.

War, of course, is hardly as simple a matter as law enforcement. "Saving lives" in a wartime situation often means killing enemies, which makes the whole moral aspect rather more ambiguous. In addition, war, to certain extent, is a game played according to rules. If both sides agree not to use torture, neither clearly has an incentive to break that agreement. The same is not true for criminals.
Click to expand...

So the sole reason we don't torture every POW we can lay our hands on who might know something good is that we are afraid the other side will do it back to us?

Suggesting that I must simply think that "terrorists deserve it" is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

True. You might just be refraining from it out of fear of retaliation rather than out of any moral opposition to torture as such. I don't think it's a position that smells any better but I agree with you that it is meaningfully different.

No, that isn't a better question, actually. It wasn't the government that abused the power in the case of Abu Ghraib, although there certainly are problems with how the abuses were dealt with. My impression was that it was a group of individuals that abused the power given to them. I think the question of whether all individuals given said power ended up abusing it is quite relevant; if yes, then you have a point, but if no, then that suggests torture could be used without abuses if it's use was more strictly regulated.
Click to expand...

Oh, spare us. The US government did nothing to curb the abuses at Abu Ghraib until it was forced to by the publication of damning images that roused public opinion against them, despite being well aware of what was going on. Nor did it punish any of the rapists, torturers or murderers on its payroll to a degree even remotely proportionate to their crimes. The US government can't wash it hands of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, nor can it be trusted with the power to torture (or for that matter to hand people over to be tortured).
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
The argument you are putting forward is in no way new or original. The "ticking time bomb" stalking horse has been the staple of the pro-torture lobby since it's first steps as far as I can recall.

However "legalised" torture has never been limited to that stalking-horse situation. Once the stalking horse has tested the water, the real agenda comes out which is secret torture with no oversight, "extraordinary rendition", and ice-packed corpses being given the thumbs up.

So no, I'm not saying that you must condone torture in any situation. I'm saying that your "ticking time bomb" argument is rarely advanced in good faith, and on the rare occasion that it is the people putting it forward are, in my view, naive fellow travellers with some of the vilest criminals on Earth.
Click to expand...

Noted, but I don't see what I can do to argue against such generalized prejudice.

Then they can get a Presidential pardon. I don't care, frankly. If it saves thousands of lives then they should do it even if it lands them in the clink - at least they won't be tortured to death while they are in there.
Click to expand...

Well, if you think doing the right thing should be illegal in any possible case, we'll just have to disagree.


It's called a hypothetical.
Click to expand...

Well, if I had strong reason to believe that treating a small number of individuals inhumanely would save many more lives, I would probably be for it, but really, this hypothetical is so hypothetical as to be quite nonsensical.

So the sole reason we don't torture every POW we can lay our hands on who might know something good is that we are afraid the other side will do it back to us?
Click to expand...

Not exactly; we don't do it because it wouldn't offer any long-term benefit. If we broke our part of the deal, then the enemy would, as well. We wouldn't have gained any new advantage, but now a bunch of people are getting tortured.

And, no, it's not the "sole" reason. It's funny that you should suggest that, since I listed another reason in the same paragraph.

True. You might just be refraining from it out of fear of retaliation rather than out of any moral opposition to torture as such. I don't think it's a position that smells any better but I agree with you that it is meaningfully different.
Click to expand...

No matter which odor straw you pick, the man you make still won't have a brain.

Oh, spare us. The US government did nothing to curb the abuses at Abu Ghraib until it was forced to by the publication of damning images that roused public opinion against them, despite being well aware of what was going on. Nor did it punish any of the rapists, torturers or murderers on its payroll to a degree even remotely proportionate to their crimes. The US government can't wash it hands of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib, nor can it be trusted with the power to torture (or for that matter to hand people over to be tortured).
Click to expand...

Well, there's not much debate to be had over such an unyielding position.

But even if we were to agree that the US government can't be allowed to use torture, ever, it wouldn't change my original point; that there are situations where the use of torture is a good idea, if not within the US.

One also wonders how such a government can be trusted with nukes.
 
Mirrorglass said:
Again, you keep misrepresenting my position. I said torture can work depending on the questions asked.

There is an implied position that torture is OK if it can save lives, of course, but that is a separate point from the one you are addressing.



A kidnapper is caught, and there is reason to suspect a victim is still alive, but confined to a location the kidnapper refuses to reveal.
Click to expand...

What part of his body would you cut first? Too squeamish for that then where would you attach the electrodes? Maybe we could just smash the testicles for we know that in pain there is truth.
 
tsig said:
What part of his body would you cut first? Too squeamish for that then where would you attach the electrodes? Maybe we could just smash the testicles for we know that in pain there is truth.
Click to expand...

Do you get pleasure from describing these things? Is it a way to convince yourself that my morality is inferior to yours, making you feel superior? Are you hoping graphic, biased descriptions of something vaguely related to what I'm suggesting will make me change my mind? Or are you just hoping people will read your posts and assume your representations of my position are anything but dishonest appealing to emotion?

Or is there another explanation? Because I honestly don't get what you are hoping to accomplish.
 
Mirrorglass said:
Do you get pleasure from describing these things? Is it a way to convince yourself that my morality is inferior to yours, making you feel superior? Are you hoping graphic, biased descriptions of something vaguely related to what I'm suggesting will make me change my mind? Or are you just hoping people will read your posts and assume your representations of my position are anything but dishonest appealing to emotion?

Or is there another explanation? Because I honestly don't get what you are hoping to accomplish.
Click to expand...

I hope to show you the reality of what you're willing to do.
 
Elind said:
On this topic; look what one can get in the UK by telling stories.
PS. tsig, I bet they all have their body parts, testicles and all.
Click to expand...
Not all:
He was deprived of sleep and whipped, the man says, and an ISI officer used pliers to pull out three fingernails from his left hand.
Click to expand...
One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts. He did it once, and they stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times, in maybe two hours. There was blood all over. "I told you I was going to teach you who's the man," [one] eventually said...One of them said it would be better just to cut it off, as I would only breed terrorists.
Click to expand...

Fortunatley this was only done save the city from a ticking time bomb:
I was in Morocco for 18 months. Once they began this, they would do it to me about once a month. One time I asked a guard: "What's the point of this? I've got nothing I can say to them. I've told them everything I possibly could."

"As far as I know, it's just to degrade you. So when you leave here, you'll have these scars and you'll never forget. So you'll always fear doing anything but what the US wants."
Click to expand...
 
Elind said:
What does this have to with Guantanamo,
Click to expand...
At least one of those guys was at Guantanamo.
even if true, and why is Britain responsible?
Click to expand...
Excellent question, what does MI5 have to do with Britain? I assure you we have our top men working on that.
 
Last edited:
Mirrorglass said:
Maybe you two could continue this conversation together? I really don't have much interest in this kindergarten argumentation.
Click to expand...

It's generally the one who has run out of any real arguments that use terms like "kindergarten argumentation".

If you felt that was the level of arguments here then you would have done well to avoid it in the first place.

Your clever placement of my reply to you next to JJ's is noted.
 
tsig said:
It's generally the one who has run out of any real arguments that use terms like "kindergarten argumentation".

If you felt that was the level of arguments here then you would have done well to avoid it in the first place.

Your clever placement of my reply to you next to JJ's is noted.
Click to expand...

Clever placement? They were in that order to begin with. Any cleverness was all yours.

As to me running out of arguments.. well, any time you wish to actually address one of the arguments I have made in the thread, I will be happy to continue. So far you've just ignored them in favour of graphic appeals to emotion. And I stand by my claim that that is the level of argumentation expected from five-year olds.
 
Taarkin said:
At least one of those guys was at Guantanamo.

Excellent question, what does MI5 have to do with Britain? I assure you we have our top men working on that.
Click to expand...

Which one had his nails pulled out at Guantanamo?

What does MI5 have to do with ISI, or Morroco?

Which ones were not Islamic terrorists?

Why don't you understand simple questions?
 
Elind said:
Which one had his nails pulled out at Guantanamo?

What does MI5 have to do with ISI, or Morroco?

Which ones were not Islamic terrorists?

Why don't you understand simple questions?
Click to expand...


U a torture fan, too?
 
Elind said:
Utterly irrelevant response, but fully in character.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is an irrelevant question to ask, some folk in this thread support torture and are OK, if not happy, with it being carried out in their name. To understand if someone is for or against can be useful in how you frame a response to someone, granted not essential.

Are you someone who considers it is OK to torture someone? And if you are is there a point at which you would stop supporting torture?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom