I now accept waterboarding

[ponderingturtle]

If america hijacked a bunch of planes in an unsuspecting country we were not at war with and used them in a terrorist act killing many civillians, causing their capital markets distress, and doing untold economic damage to their country, I would be completely in favor of that country waterboarding the captured US mastermind of the attack.

So should US service men in Iraq be fair game for torture because of all the death and destruction for incorrect reasons that america has brought to that country?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

I am not sure that the ticking time bomb scenario has never existed, it seems relatively likely to have existed on many battlefeilds. So POW's should be tortured routenly because they are the most likely to be in a ticking time bomb scenario.

I fail to see why the proponents of the ticking time bomb rational for torture don't see this.

 

[corplinx]

So should US service men in Iraq be fair game for torture because of all the death and destruction for incorrect reasons that america has brought to that country?

I think there is an implicit admittal of this in US psyops policy in rebuilding. We kept getting fired at from a town, we sent in psyops to talk with them, they wanted food and a volleyball net. We got them those things and the "insurgent" fire stopped.

We didn't blow up the town.

Now I fully expect what I just wrote to be parsed by someone like Upchurch as "corplinx supports the insurgents" but of course no such stretch is really to be made here.

(disclaimer: the volleyball example was actullay afghanistan)

 

[pomeroo]

Don't blindly use a fanatical right winger term like "icons of the left". Get your camera, peek through the windows of "lefties" and get me some pictures of a typical "lefty" living room. According to you, there should be portraits of these people covering the walls, and then statues, busts and sculptures of them (Now! Full Lifelike Detail! Order Today, Delivery by Christmas!) occupying nearly every square inch of free space in that living room.

Then, and ONLY then, will I utter a peep. Peeps must never be squandered, or wasted.

And peeps must never be uttered when the perpetrators of torture are leftist icons. You're right, I suppose. No brain-dead young lefty would be caught dead wearing a tee shirt with the image of the murderous sociopath Che Guevara on it.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

I am putting forth the idea that the goals of an individual may be very different from the goals of society -- this is common knowledge -- and that in some cases there is no need for society to attempt to reconcile this -- which is not.

So with torture, my claim is that on average, across society, the legalization of any form of torture would do much more harm than good. Even allowing for special cases. Thus, it should be outlawed completely.

My claim is also that for an individual, certain conditions may arise that make torture more beneficial than detrimental, even if they face the same torture as eventual punishment in return for their deeds. In such cases, the individual would be justified in torturing another.

However, the fact that the individual is justified according to their situation does not mean they are justified according to ours. In other words, I am saying that embracing a "double standard" here, rather than avoiding one, is a possible solution. If I was in that situation, yes, I would probably torture as well, but since I am not, and since most of us are not, then we cannot justify it, and must punish whoever does it.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

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.

The question very much is "does torture work?" as waterboarding is torture.

Many people apparently believe in creationism. That still doesn't make it right.

Just one minor pointlet.

Torture is against the law.

 

[Upchurch]

I still beat my wife.

As I said, I'm trying to find out what your limit is. Even though I would have thought anyone would have considered torture to be an obvious over-the-top and unacceptable thing to do in civilized society, you apparently see otherwise.

I tried to go even further over-the-top. If I go too far, then good. That means there is a limit for you. We just have to work back to find it.

So, do you think what the 9/11 hijackers did was an acceptable action? Given your above response, I'm guessing not, but why?

eta: a slight rephrase: Is what the 9/11 hijackers did a tactic the US should adopt? If not, why not?

 

[Dan O.]

eta: a slight rephrase: Is what the 9/11 hijackers did a tactic the US should adopt? If not, why not?

You mean, after the US is reduced to an insignificant third world nation without a viable military force, should it continue to exert it's foreign policy by hijacking planes and crashing them into the economic centers of the countries that it feels are responsible for the continued starving of its people?

That doesn't sound like a tactic that would garner international support and might just bring the world together in a pact to removing the current leadership.

 

[Upchurch]

So, there will be prosecutions against those who broke the laws?

I certainly hope so. Time will tell.

What in the bleedin' hell does that have to do with your country using torture?

Well, given your wooish political skew, I take your assessment of the US as a banana republic with a grain of salt.

What kind of sanctimonious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude is that?

Says the guy who just asked me, "Do you live in a banana republic or what?"

 

[Upchurch]

That doesn't sound like a tactic that would garner international support and might just bring the world together in a pact to removing the current leadership.

What do you think torture prisoners would do, in that respect?

(let alone invading foreign countries, but that's another issue)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Of course I do. In ww2 we had people shooting other people as a means to an end. I have it on good authority we even killed them with bombs. We do many immoral things that serves a purpose other than personal gratifcation.

Killing is immoral. I don't like moral arguements. Too subjective, vague, and it can go anywhere with all sorts of comparions.

Lets talk numbers and facts.

I have to jump in here.

There is a tremendous difference between fighting and killing in a pitched battle, and in capturing someone and torturing them when they are helpless and at your mercy.

In my opinion, torture is treason.

In WWI the American miltiary developed such a spotless reputation for treating their prisoners well that a generation later, most especially during the Battle of the Bulge Germans surrendered to American forces in droves, whereas the Germans had killed many Allied prisoners out of hand. It created an enviornment where Allied forces would fight tooth and nail rather than surrender, whereas the Germans were often all too happy to surrender to the Americans. When you torture a prisoner, you are telling all his brothers in arms that if they surrender, they might be tortured too. That discourages surrender, prolongs fighting, and it also kills Americans, since American soldiers, sailors, and marines have to fight to the bitter end with people who might have otherwise capitulated.

Even if you could insure perfect reliability in the information you can extract through torture, you are still causing the deaths of American combatants, by removing the possibility of surrender from the table for the enemy. The path of the least deaths for your own side is to treat your prisoners better than the enemy would have treated them as soldiers. If we made surrender look attractive, rather than horrible, we'd save lives all around.

FFS, haven't you ever studied the Crusades? That's part of why Saladin won!

 

[corplinx]

As I said, I'm trying to find out what your limit is. Even though I would have thought anyone would have considered torture to be an obvious over-the-top and unacceptable thing to do in civilized society, you apparently see otherwise.

Define torture. We torture people all the time in this society. Have you seen what our prisons are like lately? The problem with defining torture down from physical suffering is that we expose many things we do as torture.

I tried to go even further over-the-top. If I go too far, then good. That means there is a limit for you. We just have to work back to find it.

I'm not interested in playing any games with you Upchurch.

So, do you think what the 9/11 hijackers did was an acceptable action? Given your above response, I'm guessing not, but why?

I've already answered this in another post, although not in a reply to you. Read the long reciprocity post I made.

eta: a slight rephrase: Is what the 9/11 hijackers did a tactic the US should adopt? If not, why not?

Why would the US want to launch unprovoked attacks against a country's non-combatants? I don't see the benefit in say, blowing up the Eiffel tower on a whim. In fact, I'm not even sure why you asked this question.

 

[rocketdodger]

Define torture. We torture people all the time in this society. Have you seen what our prisons are like lately? The problem with defining torture down from physical suffering is that we expose many things we do as torture.

This is an amazingly good point corplinx -- in fact I can't believe I didn't think of it already.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Define torture. We torture people all the time in this society. Have you seen what our prisons are like lately? The problem with defining torture down from physical suffering is that we expose many things we do as torture.

So shouldn't we be trying to make the prisons less torturous instead of making it easier to torture people who haven't even been convicted of any crimes?

 

[Upchurch]

Define torture. We torture people all the time in this society. Have you seen what our prisons are like lately? The problem with defining torture down from physical suffering is that we expose many things we do as torture.

Water boarding isn't physical suffering?

We humans require four basic things to live, in order of importance: air, heat, water, and food. Without air, we can only last a few minutes. Without heat, we can only last (depending on how much heat we're lacking) 15 minutes to a couple of hours. Without water, we can only last a few days. Without food, we can only last about a week.

Water boarding takes away the first most precious thing we need to survice. How is that not physical suffering?

I'm not interested in playing any games with you Upchurch.

And yet, here you are playing word games like "what is 'torture'?" I'll play the games with you if you want, but don't pretend you don't want to play.

I've already answered this in another post, although not in a reply to you. Read the long reciprocity post I made.

I'll go back and take a look when I get the time. Thanks in advance.

Why would the US want to launch unprovoked attacks against a country's non-combatants? I don't see the benefit in say, blowing up the Eiffel tower on a whim. In fact, I'm not even sure why you asked this question.

Not just its non-combatants, but in their mind a symbol of the country as a whole. As for unprovoked attack, it was no more unprovoked than the current Iraq War.

And I explained why I asked the question.

 

[rocketdodger]

So shouldn't we be trying to make the prisons less torturous instead of making it easier to torture people who haven't even been convicted of any crimes?

That would be my choice.

In my opinion punishment is stupid. Prison should be a place where dangerous individuals are put to keep them out of society, nothing more.

 

[Dan O.]

Unless you are planning to put every prisoner behind bars forever, they are eventually going to be released. It would be in our best interest to see that they are better able to contribute to society when they get out. The current system seems to only teach them how to be better criminals.

 

[Almo]

Not just its non-combatants, but in their mind a symbol of the country as a whole. As for unprovoked attack, it was no more unprovoked than the current Iraq War.

Very, very good point.

 

[Elind]

I am against torture. I am against beating a man senseless just cause he is an enemy. I am against causing someone terribly physical pain just to attempt to get information.

But waterboarding is simulated drowning. No one drowns or dies from waterboarding.

The point of waterboarding is to scare the person into thinking he is drowning, even though he is not.

I think if it can indeed save a nation from a terrible attack, waterboarding, under certain circumstances, should be allowed.

I believe a doctor should be present. I believe there should be a time limit to how long the prisoner can be water boarded. I believe if no useful information comes from the prisoner after a few attempts at waterboarding, it should be stopped.

And yes, it is always possible that an innocent man is waterboarded or a man who knows nothing usefull is waterboarded. But it seems to me that the risk of possibly causing an innocent person the fear of drowning, even though he will not drown and will not die, is worth the price of trying to protect a nation.

Where were you in my earlier thread on the same subject, more or less? Just because you picked a marginally more controversial title you get so many more indignant opinions than I!! Not fair.

The common, contrary, theme seems to be that all humans have rights and to violate them diminishes our selves more than any possible benefit, under any circumstance, is ever, possibly, never conceivably, not under my watch, legally speaking, worth more than my rights or that of my children.

Of course we appreciate that some people think that known (without question) genocidal mass murderers have a right to privacy regarding the information held in their little minds.

The unpleasantness, of anything some call torture, is a matter of personal choice is it not? All that is needed is full, verifiable, and trickily tested answers to simple painless questioning and requests for information.

The weak at heart may take comfort that such matters need not be expected to be applied randomly or without exceptional cause, and should be monitored to ensure the same, but the same bleeding hearts may also take comfort that some people are prepared to protect them in ways they are not able to do for themselves, as has always been the story of human history.

 

[Elind]

As for unprovoked attack, it was no more unprovoked than the current Iraq War.

You know, for a pretend philosopher, that is a pretty disgusting attitude, aside from it's basic ignorance, to hold. You disappoint me greatly, particularly given that you have a status supposedly due a certain amount of respect on this forum. You have lost mine. Go have a beer with with the Doc.