Effectiveness of Torture

[Morrigan]

No. But I would inflict some TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on him/her ... as in waterboarding. You see, I can respond rationally. In contrast to those on your side of this debate who see inflicting temporary pain and discomfort as morally equal to (or even worse) than letting hundreds or thousands of people die when *maybe* you could have saved them by simply inflicting that temporary pain and discomfort.

What about the moral equivalence between inflicting permanent pain on just ONE EVIL MAN vs letting thousands of innocents die? You could have saved all those people by simply sacrificing ONE (sick, evil monster) guy's teeth/skin/penis... but instead you'd let them all die. All in the name of moral superiority. Oh, we're so impressed by your moral clarity.

No? NO?!?

You would let tens of millions of people die simply because you won't take a pair of pliers and rip out the teeth, one at a time, from a VERY BAD PERSON? It's only temporary. He can get bridges and/or dentures later and it will save the lives of tens of millions of people!

Why do you love KSM so much more than tens of millions of innocent US citizens?

And you think you have the morally *superior* position?

Damn, was beaten to it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't see how it matters at all whether the victim of torture is 100% good, 100% evil or an actual real person (i.e. some mixture of both) in deciding whether torture is effective and whether its effectiveness can be used as a justification.

As with most limits on the authority of government, the ban on torture is a restriction on what we ("we" as in "we the people" aka as "the government" or an agent of the government) can do. That is, it's an absolute limit on what we can do rather than some sort of privilege that attaches to some individuals and not others.

This is a bit of topic drift, but I also reject the notion that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens. That we can get around due process by setting up a prison offshore is absurd.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I agree with you, Joe. When we decide that "bad" people can be tortured, then we start to have subjective standards as to who can be tortured and who cannot. The only objective standard is to make all torture illegal. Granted, what torture is seems to be subjective to certain conservatives, even though the internationally recognized definition seems to be objective.

 

[BeAChooser]

So it's ok to cause a person trauma, as long as it's physically temporary...why? Would you advocate such treatment on a child?

If a child knowing information that might save many lives was refusing to disclose it? Yes. Do you really consider inflicting some temporary pain on a child worse than what that child would be doing by withholding the information? Or what you would be doing by not getting the information from the child using temporary pain?

By the way, were you never spanked as a child?

 

[BeAChooser]

And you think you have the morally *superior* position?

To you? Yes. Because I'd at least go so far as to use temporary pain and discomfort to elicit vital information that would save many lives. You apparently wouldn't even do that. You'd let those lives be lost.

 

[Upchurch]

To you? Yes. Because I'd at least go so far as to use temporary pain and discomfort to elicit vital information that would save many lives. You apparently wouldn't even do that. You'd let those lives be lost.

You would let those lives be lost too because you would not be willing take a pair of gardening sheers and start cutting off a VERY BAD PERSON's toes, one by one, to save HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of INNOCENT lives.

You'd let those people just die, wouldn't you?

It's a simple question, after all.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
No. But I would inflict some TEMPORARY pain and discomfort on him/her ... as in waterboarding. You see, I can respond rationally. In contrast to those on your side of this debate who see inflicting temporary pain and discomfort as morally equal to (or even worse) than letting hundreds or thousands of people die when *maybe* you could have saved them by simply inflicting that temporary pain and discomfort.

You have no way of knowing all that. If one had all the knowledge proposed in your scenario there would be no need to torture.

Your claims are so disjointed now ... responses so disconnected from the quotes you respond to, that it's almost not worth even responding to your claims any more. But since JoeTheJuggler has chimed in to agree with you, I will respond and show why you and Joe are wrong ... using an existing example ... the case of KSM.

In KSM's case, we knew with high probability that he was a very bad terrorist who'd already been involved in a plot leading to the death of thousands of Americans.

We knew with high probability that there were many more terrorists like him still out there, belonging to the organization that he belonged to (al-Qaeda) and hoping to kill more Americans in new terrorist plots.

We knew that al-Qaeda had time to start other plots during the time after 9/11 when KSM was still free (nearly 2 years). Hence, there was a high probability that there were other plots underway to kill more Americans and its allies at the time KSM was captured.

Two years is a lot of time so there was a high probability some of those plots might be reaching fruition. Thus there was urgency.

We knew with high probability that KSM was a leader in their organization and hence would, with high probability, know details about some of the ongoing or planned plots and even know the names of some of the terrorists involved in them.

We knew with high probability that having such information would allow us to foil those plots and perhaps capture those terrorists.

We knew with high probability that KSM would know the names of other terrorists in his organization and know many other details about the way al-Qaeda was structured and operated.

We knew with high probability that knowing that information would also be quite helpful in defeating al-Qaeda

We also knew that conventional interrogation techniques were not working with KSM. He was clearly resistant to them. Even after a week or two of conventional methods being used, he had not revealed any information about ongoing plots or the names of single terrorist. He hadn't told interrogators anything that he didn't think they already knew. When asked what the ongoing plots were, he is reported to have replied: "Soon you will know."

We also knew with some degree of certainty that waterboarding would be able to break his resistance to talking in a time frame more consistent with the urgency of our need to know what he knew. We knew this because we routinely used waterboarding in training our own special forces. We knew what it could do.

And that's what we knew. Now go ahead you two ... tell us how that information makes enhanced interrogation methods unnecessary.

 

[BeAChooser]

Torture is defined as the intentional infliction of severe pain.

So then putting a harmless caterpillar in a cell with a terrorist isn't torture after all? Glad we've cleared that up. And that sort of rules out considering panties on a prisoner's head as torture, too.

Let's not talk about "some" pain or "discomfort".

Well do you have a definition for "severe". Something that can be quantified in absolute terms? Maybe my "some" is your "severe" ... D).

Do you know prior to 2005, the legal definition of torture in this country said that only procedures that could result in "organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death" constituted torture punishable by law? See what I mean about how it's just a definition that can change depending on the circumstances and even the whims of the whoever is running the government at the time. It's not written on stone anywhere.

Why is it when you formulate this hypothetical you don't say the word "torture"?

For the same reason many of you don't call a fetus a baby.

 

[tsig]

I don't see how it matters at all whether the victim of torture is 100% good, 100% evil or an actual real person (i.e. some mixture of both) in deciding whether torture is effective and whether its effectiveness can be used as a justification.

As with most limits on the authority of government, the ban on torture is a restriction on what we ("we" as in "we the people" aka as "the government" or an agent of the government) can do. That is, it's an absolute limit on what we can do rather than some sort of privilege that attaches to some individuals and not others.

This is a bit of topic drift, but I also reject the notion that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens. That we can get around due process by setting up a prison offshore is absurd.

Torture has a history we do not need to wait to determine it's effectiveness.

There is also for Americans:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentviii

This argument was resolved 200 years ago.

 

[BeAChooser]

What about the moral equivalence between inflicting permanent pain on just ONE EVIL MAN vs letting thousands of innocents die? You could have saved all those people by simply sacrificing ONE (sick, evil monster) guy's teeth/skin/penis... but instead you'd let them all die. All in the name of moral superiority. Oh, we're so impressed by your moral clarity.

Maybe I'm just trying to be more morally clear, more morally superior, than you.

Tell us, would you inflict permanent pain on one evil man who with 100% certainty was involved in a plot that with 100% certainty was going to kill a million people, if there was a 100% certainty that doing so would save those million lives? I wouldn't hesitate. Would you?

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't see how it matters at all whether the victim of torture is 100% good, 100% evil or an actual real person (i.e. some mixture of both) in deciding whether torture is effective and whether its effectiveness can be used as a justification.

I agree, but since you folks don't want to talk about the CIA claims of effectiveness and why Obama is withholding data that could either validate or refute those claims, we might might as well talk about hypothetical scenarios, evil men, and moral equivalency.

 

[tsig]

If a child knowing information that might save many lives was refusing to disclose it? Yes. Do you really consider inflicting some temporary pain on a child worse than what that child would be doing by withholding the information? Or what you would be doing by not getting the information from the child using temporary pain?

By the way, were you never spanked as a child?

You seem really determined to hurt someone. Why is that?

 

[tsig]

Maybe I'm just trying to be more morally clear, more morally superior, than you.

Tell us, would you inflict permanent pain on one evil man who with 100% certainty was involved in a plot that with 100% certainty was going to kill a million people, if there was a 100% certainty that doing so would save those million lives? I wouldn't hesitate. Would you?

WOW the goalposts just went by at warp speed!!

It's pretty clear that you are salivating at the opportunity to have at a helpless naked victim.

 

[BeAChooser]

When we decide that "bad" people can be tortured, then we start to have subjective standards as to who can be tortured and who cannot. The only objective standard is to make all torture illegal. Granted, what torture is seems to be subjective to certain conservatives, even though the internationally recognized definition seems to be objective.

Obviously, you don't know the definition of subjective and objective. Many *modern* people consider spanking children torture. Yet generations of children grew up being spanked and were probably the better for it, for the most part. That's because the definition of torture is based on the feelings of those defining it. Your feelings are different than mine (and yours aren't always right). One culture can feel differently about issues than another. The people of one time period may have different feelings about issues than the next. And leftists apparently have different feelings than conservatives. There is nothing sacred about the current definition of torture. It came into existance only a few years ago. An objective standard would be one having reality. Like a rock. Like a law of nature that scientists can measure. Not a law written by a small group of men and women about something as ethereal as "torture".

 

[BeAChooser]

You would let those lives be lost too because you would not be willing take a pair of gardening sheers and start cutting off a VERY BAD PERSON's toes, one by one, to save HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of INNOCENT lives.

You'd let those people just die, wouldn't you?

It's a simple question, after all.

Tell you what, Upchurch, let's put our debate in the same concrete terms I used with Morrigan.

Would you inflict severe or even permanent pain on ONE evil person, who with 100% certainty is involved in a plot that with 100% certainty is going to kill a million people, if there is a 100% certainty that inflicting that pain will save those million lives, and you know with 100% certainty there is no other way to get the information in time to save those million lives? Yes or no?

 

[tsig]

Tell you what, Upchurch, let's put our debate in the same concrete terms I used with Morrigan.

Would you inflict severe or even permanent pain on ONE evil person, who with 100% certainty is involved in a plot that with 100% certainty is going to kill a million people, if there is a 100% certainty that inflicting that pain will save those million lives, and you know with 100% certainty there is no other way to get the information in time to save those million lives? Yes or no?

If I knew all that then torture is superfluous.


Would you inflict pain just because you could?

 

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser- Tell us, would you inflict permanent pain on one evil man who with 100% certainty was involved in a plot that with 100% certainty was going to kill a million people, if there was a 100% certainty that doing so would save those million lives? I wouldn't hesitate. Would you?

WOW the goalposts just went by at warp speed!!

The goalposts haven't changed. I'm simply trying to make it even easier for folks on your side of this debate to answer my hypothetical question. Apparently even that attempt is useless. Or shall we assume your answer would be "no, you wouldn't inflict permanent pain" in this case?

 

[tsig]

The goalposts haven't changed. I'm simply trying to make it even easier for folks on your side of this debate to answer my hypothetical question. Apparently even that attempt is useless. Or shall we assume your answer would be "no, you wouldn't inflict permanent pain" in this case?

No.

If an entire universe of bleeding victims depended on me adding one more then NO!!

 

[BeAChooser]

No.

If an entire universe of bleeding victims depended on me adding one more then NO!!

I rest my case, folks. Such is the insanity of the left.

 

[tsig]

I rest my case, folks. Such is the insanity of the left.

Such is your inhumanity. happily punishing for truth.