US petition
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: vidcc
This is for citizens of the USA.
http://www.tortureisnotus.org/
I appreciate our conservative members may not like the people that set this up but this is about human values. This is about us being better than countries that torture. We are civilised, let's not practice the very thing we claim to be fighting.
Posted by: Busyman
Torture has been around and will always be around.
Secret CIA prisons will always be around.
If the US (among other countries) signs on to a no torture policy, it will still happen, so they may as well sign on.:shifty:
Posted by: Rat Faced
Well, as its just been released that the Iraqi government is already doing the very things that the Hussain regime was supposedly removed for...
And the US/UK were and are still doing the torture thing by all accounts...
There can be no harm in signing... although it will be ignored :P
Posted by: ziggyjuarez
waste of time.
Posted by: GepperRankins
maybe signing it would send the right message to the rest of the world :ermm:
Posted by: Busyman
Well, as its just been released that the Iraqi government is already doing the very things that the Hussain regime was supposedly removed for...
And the US/UK were and are still doing the torture thing by all accounts...
There can be no harm in signing... although it will be ignored :P
Eggzacklee.;)
Sorta like the Non Nuclear Prolifer....well that thing with the nukes.:unsure:
Posted by: Everose
Thanks for the link, Vid. I read where some of the prisoners they found in Iraq were paralized and some with areas of skin missing.
do you have anyplace where one can petition to surrender from the human race
Posted by: j2k4
I appreciate our conservative members may not like the people that set this up but this is about human values.
So Hank and I are precluded from any credible discussion of "human values", then?
Damned intolerant of you.
Funny; now the world is divided between "conservatives" and "not-conservatives".
So much for unity, huh?
Posted by: GepperRankins
the not-conservatives tend to be more unified though, like
Posted by: Everose
[QUOTE=vidcc]
I appreciate our conservative members may not like the people that set this up but this is about human values. QUOTE]
I saw this and read it as such that you were saying 'it doesn't matter who set this up, what matters is human values, something we all care about.'
Did I misunderstand your meaning, Vid?
Posted by: muchspl3
petitions don't work, the sooner you realize this the better off you are
Posted by: j2k4
[QUOTE=vidcc]
I appreciate our conservative members may not like the people that set this up but this is about human values. QUOTE]
I saw this and read it as such that you were saying 'it doesn't matter who set this up, what matters is human values, something we all care about.'
Did I misunderstand your meaning, Vid?
Only insofar as you need to remember that "other-than-conservatives" determine what or who conservatives are allowed to "like" or "advocate", 'Rose.
If they say it's off limits, or especially "human values", they are staking out that particular cause/sentiment for themselves; conservatives may pay lip-service, but only as permitted by "other-than-conservatives", who should be defined here as those who are liberal/socialist, but have a sensitivity to labels, and so apply them only to others.
Posted by: 3RA1N1AC
Funny; now the world is divided between "conservatives" and "not-conservatives".
"You're either with us or against us." -- George W. Bush (he's a uniter, not a divider)
not to say that boosh speaks for every conservative. but. you know. he's got some connections.
Posted by: Busyman
Funny; now the world is divided between "conservatives" and "not-conservatives".
"You're either with us or against us." -- George W. Bush (he's a uniter, not a divider)
not to say that boosh speaks for every conservative. but. you know. he's got some connections.
He did until now...as there are other Repubs jockeying for the position of the next Prez.
Posted by: Everose
[QUOTE=Everose]
Only insofar as you need to remember that "other-than-conservatives" determine what or who conservatives are allowed to "like" or "advocate", 'Rose.
That practice is rather limiting.....or narrow, is it not?
If they say it's off limits, or especially "human values", they are staking out that particular cause/sentiment for themselves; conservatives may pay lip-service, but only as permitted by "other-than-conservatives", who should be defined here as those who are liberal/socialist, but have a sensitivity to labels, and so apply them only to others.
Short cuts into the understanding of other humans and their beliefs. We all take them, don't we. Once suposedly defined, labeled and limited.
Posted by: vidcc
I appreciate our conservative members may not like the people that set this up but this is about human values.
This line is to stick to the point of what it is about which is the value that torture is wrong. It is to avoid any argument that the people that set it up are doing so to make a partisan dig at this administration. I wrote it so people would view the point as is and not any partisan agenda. I wrote it so motives would not be questioned.
you either obviously missed that point or decided to be partisan and deflect from the subject.
Rose got it, I wonder why you questioned it. Could it be that you really are paranoid and you see everything as a personal attack?
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
Are you back to the "I started the thread, so I'll decide how people debate the point" routine.
Surely as long as people stay relevant, then they can choose what the issues are. If they think that the organisation having an agenda is important, then they should say that.
Freedom of expression and so forth.
Posted by: vidcc
Are you back to the "I started the thread, so I'll decide how people debate the point" routine.
Surely as long as people stay relevant, then they can choose what the issues are. If they think that the organisation having an agenda is important, then they should say that.
Freedom of expression and so forth.
The line was questioned by someone so I cleared up what it said and why I wrote it...you have a problem with that?
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
Are you back to the "I started the thread, so I'll decide how people debate the point" routine.
Surely as long as people stay relevant, then they can choose what the issues are. If they think that the organisation having an agenda is important, then they should say that.
Freedom of expression and so forth.
The line was questioned by someone so I cleared up what it said and why I wrote it...you have a problem with that?
No problem with you clearing up what you meant. A problem with you trying to put boundaries on how people discuss things.
Posted by: vidcc
The line was questioned by someone so I cleared up what it said and why I wrote it...you have a problem with that?
No problem with you clearing up what you meant. A problem with you trying to put boundaries on how people discuss things.
Troll http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9587/hugetired5tf.gif
Posted by: j2k4
Rose got it, I wonder why you questioned it. Could it be that you really are paranoid and you see everything as a personal attack?
Not at all; I merely wondered why you felt compelled to introduce a link to a cause you apparently advocate by qualifying it past conservatives.
After all, you could have omitted the first sentence in it's entirety without affecting your ostensible intent.
The only other reason for such an opening disclaimer would be in service of an urge to patronize, and I'd rather not believe that you'd do that maliciously, much less out of simple ignorance.
In all honesty, I was so put off I actually forewent my curiouslty about your petition and didn't read it anyway, which, if I am in any way typical of conservatives, renders it (at the very least) an unfortunate miscalculation on your part.
However, if you will humble yourself before me, I will deign to read it; after all, I'm not that big a prick.:P
Posted by: Busyman
No problem with you clearing up what you meant. A problem with you trying to put boundaries on how people discuss things.
Troll http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9587/hugetired5tf.gif
'Cause he's right?
Posted by: Busyman
Rose got it, I wonder why you questioned it. Could it be that you really are paranoid and you see everything as a personal attack?
Not at all; I merely wondered why you felt compelled to introduce a link to a cause you apparently advocate by qualifying it past conservatives.
After all, you could have omitted the first sentence in it's entirety without affecting your ostensible intent.
The only other reason for such an opening disclaimer would be in service of an urge to patronize, and I'd rather not believe that you'd do that maliciously, much less out of simple ignorance.
In all honesty, I was so put off I actually forewent my curiouslty about your petition and didn't read it anyway, which, if I am in any way typical of conservatives, renders it (at the very least) an unfortunate miscalculation on your part.
However, if you will humble yourself before me, I will deign to read it; after all, I'm not that big a prick.:P
Well, damn...I haven't deigned to read it. You whatchu sayin'?:lookaroun
Posted by: j2k4
Not at all; I merely wondered why you felt compelled to introduce a link to a cause you apparently advocate by qualifying it past conservatives.
After all, you could have omitted the first sentence in it's entirety without affecting your ostensible intent.
The only other reason for such an opening disclaimer would be in service of an urge to patronize, and I'd rather not believe that you'd do that maliciously, much less out of simple ignorance.
In all honesty, I was so put off I actually forewent my curiouslty about your petition and didn't read it anyway, which, if I am in any way typical of conservatives, renders it (at the very least) an unfortunate miscalculation on your part.
However, if you will humble yourself before me, I will deign to read it; after all, I'm not that big a prick.:P
Well, damn...I haven't deigned to read it. You whatchu sayin'?:lookaroun
He wasn't trying to patronize you.
You're only black, and have not the slightest idea of the ordeal we (both of us) conservatives face on a daily basis.:huh:
Posted by: j2k4
Funny; now the world is divided between "conservatives" and "not-conservatives".
"You're either with us or against us." -- George W. Bush (he's a uniter, not a divider)
not to say that boosh speaks for every conservative. but. you know. he's got some connections.
I'm not going to defend Bush, but the Dems have been much more divisive than he has; they really hate being out of power, and reject every overture.
It's really funny.:D
Posted by: hobbes
All is fair in love and war.
One may establish a Geneva Convention to allow two foes to establish rules of conduct.
If one decides to chop off heads and make a video and the other feels compelled to give prisoners 3 squares a day and a pleasant cell, I call bullshit.
I am not better than torture for such a foe. That sort of ideologic chatter is for those who have no personal stake in a war and sit in the drawing room sipping brandy and telling people how they should act.
If lives can be saved by turning screws when up against an enemy that has no interest in observing any rules of conduct, then I say, "Git her done".
Above it, no way.
I'll grind their bones to make my bread.
Vidcc, you flip out when a kindergarten teacher tells your child to kick in a simulated karate leasson. Imagine your same child the subject of a torture/ execution video. You will find that your "better than that" dissociated philosophy will desintegrate into a "ride 'til we find them, kill them all" mentality.
"Better than that"? Brandy sipping words from someone who has nothing precious at stake.
Posted by: j2k4
All is fair in love and war.
One may establish a Geneva Convention to allow two foes to establish rules of conduct.
If one decides to chop off heads and make a video and the other feels compelled to give prisoners 3 squares a day and a pleasant cell, I call bullshit.
I am not better than torture for such a foe. That sort of ideologic chatter is for those who have no personal stake in a war and sit in the drawing room sipping brandy and telling people how they should act.
If lives can be saved by turning screws when up against an enemy that has no interest in observing any rules of conduct, then I say, "Git her done".
Above it, no way.
I'll grind their bones to make my bread.
Vidcc, you flip out when a kindergarten teacher tells your child to kick in a simulated karate leasson. Imagine your same child the subject of a torture/ execution video. You will find that your "better than that" dissociated philosophy will desintegrate into a "ride 'til we find them, kill them all" mentality.
"Better than that"? Brandy sipping words from someone who has nothing precious at stake.
Um, yes.
Just so, and all that.
BTW-welcome back to the fray, however temporary your stay.
Posted by: vidcc
It's simple.
If you think torture is ok don't sign the petition. If you think torture is not ok but don't care anyway, don't sign the petition. If you want your lawmakers to know you think torture is not ok sign the petition. If you want your lawmakers to know you think torture is not ok but don't wish to be associated with a left wing group write your own personal e.mail/letter.
Whatever you feel is appropriate just do that.
Posted by: vidcc
'Cause he's right?
no
Posted by: j2k4
Or you could try this...I believe it's Cheney's site.
http://www.tortureisus.org/
Posted by: Busyman
Well, damn...I haven't deigned to read it. You whatchu sayin'?:lookaroun
He wasn't trying to patronize you.
You're only black, and have not the slightest idea of the ordeal we (both of us) conservatives face on a daily basis.:huh:
Oh ok. Now I feel better.:mellow:
Btw, I'm not just black. I do have a tiny red stripe going down my left arm. It's just hard to see 'cause I'm so black.:ermm:
Posted by: 3RA1N1AC
I do have a tiny red stripe going down my left arm.
going down your arm? most people prefer the red stripe to go down their pie-hole.
http://www.straight.com/images/MUS_BAR_RedStrip_55.jpg
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
All is fair in love and war.
One may establish a Geneva Convention to allow two foes to establish rules of conduct.
If one decides to chop off heads and make a video and the other feels compelled to give prisoners 3 squares a day and a pleasant cell, I call bullshit.
I am not better than torture for such a foe. That sort of ideologic chatter is for those who have no personal stake in a war and sit in the drawing room sipping brandy and telling people how they should act.
If lives can be saved by turning screws when up against an enemy that has no interest in observing any rules of conduct, then I say, "Git her done".
Above it, no way.
I'll grind their bones to make my bread.
Vidcc, you flip out when a kindergarten teacher tells your child to kick in a simulated karate leasson. Imagine your same child the subject of a torture/ execution video. You will find that your "better than that" dissociated philosophy will desintegrate into a "ride 'til we find them, kill them all" mentality.
"Better than that"? Brandy sipping words from someone who has nothing precious at stake.
They stab one of your's, you shoot one of their's.
Nah, you must not allow yourself to lower your civilized standards, just because your enemy did it first. That just isn't right.
Has Star Trek taught us nothing.
Posted by: Gripper
When you are fighting fanatics who are willing to die for their beliefs,how far do you go,surely there are drugs today that'll make you sing like a bird,if that fails get pissed with them and they'll tell you allsorts
Posted by: hobbes
They stab one of your's, you shoot one of their's.
Nah, you must not allow yourself to lower your civilized standards, just because your enemy did it first. That just isn't right.
Has Star Trek taught us nothing.
I want to clearly point that I am totally against what happened at Abu Garab prison. It was done, NOT to extract military information, simply to allow some of our sickos to have fun, with tacit approval from above.
I think that most Americans were embarrassed by what happened there and we all felt that "we are better than that". And we either are or should be.
Trouble is that what was done there was already illegal, it just wasn't enforced. So, I think responders in this thread sort of have already echoed the pointlessness of said petition. You can put anything you want on paper, but without enforcement it is worthless.
I think that routine torture and humilation is completely unacceptable. It reallyaccomplishes nothing and is, in fact, great propaganda for the other side once such behavior is known.
Most of those poor Iraq soldiers were 18-25 and had enlisted in Saddams army as a way to obtain food and medical attention for their families. Like most American soldiers, they sign up for the benefits and hope like hell war does not break out.
These kids don't know anything of value. Torturing them yields no military gain and I agree that to do so, despite the fact that the other side is not being so nice, does in fact, make us the the very pigs, we are accusing others of being. We must have an internal sense of what is right.
I do reserve the right, in specific situations to turn the screws a bit when someone is captured that has specific information. I don't want to feel hand-tied by some piece of paper that says I can't touch him or I will be committing war crimes.
Again, it doesn't really matter, he is going to be tortured, no matter the legislation. I guess Cheney doesn't want the criminal charges to flow upstream and bite him in the ass.
And the insurgents aren't peons left out as target practice by some insane leader, they are self-recruited and they do know something. Who was harbouring them, how they got in, how the weapons are moved and I have no problem turning the screws on them to extract information.
Yes, I do think they should be placed in a habitable domicile and given clean water and food, but when interrogations are underway, things might get harsh. The information in his head could save my soldiers lives.
I think we all know that in certain situations, torture is used to get vital military information. The real problem was the pointless humilation and torture at Abu Garab, done to entertain a group of sickos. Sickos that were encouraged by leadership that looked the other way. It took torture from the hushed hidden backrooms and pasted it all over the web.
I do understand where Cheney is coming from. He can't just say "come on people get you heads out of your asses, torture occurs in every war, by every side. Sometimes you need to lean on people to get them to remember where the bomb is going to be placed, and what buildings the hijackers are going to target". Torture has and will continue to occur in very select situations and he doesn't want these incidents coming home to him. On the other hand, who can he blame for this reactionary petition, but himself.
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
hobbes,
What you just said was, the end justifies the means. I disagree.
I believe in the rule of law and in due process. I do not believe that torture is an acceptable form of interrogation.
I do not believe that torturing people is acceptable, even if it would provide valuable military intelligence.
We cannot condemn people who use torture to obtain information they want. Then do it ourselves when it is us who want that information.
That is just wrong.
There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order.
Posted by: Busyman
No nation should openly support torture. However, we know every does it when necessary.
It is an under the table typathang.
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
No nation should openly support torture. However, we know every does it when necessary.
It is an under the table typathang.
Is that kind of like.
" ... you don't want to know the truth."
Posted by: j2k4
hobbes,
What you just said was, the end justifies the means. I disagree.
I believe in the rule of law and in due process. I do not believe that torture is an acceptable form of interrogation.
I do not believe that torturing people is acceptable, even if it would provide valuable military intelligence.
We cannot condemn people who use torture to obtain information they want. Then do it ourselves when it is us who want that information.
That is just wrong.
There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order.
JP-
Would you agree with any intelligence-gathering methods that employed, uh....medication?
The kind that loosens lips and inhibitions?
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
I would accept the use of copious quantities of t'apple.
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
On a more serious note .... let me think about that.
Posted by: j2k4
On a more serious note .... let me think about that.
Willdoo.
Posted by: hobbes
hobbes,
What you just said was, the end justifies the means. I disagree.
I believe in the rule of law and in due process. I do not believe that torture is an acceptable form of interrogation.
I do not believe that torturing people is acceptable, even if it would provide valuable military intelligence.
We cannot condemn people who use torture to obtain information they want. Then do it ourselves when it is us who want that information.
That is just wrong.
There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order.
Like a mathmatician, I like to test limits.
If a single human knew where the detonation device was that would blow up the Earth, would I coerce him into revealing this location to me so that I could defuse the bomb or would I recognize a law on a piece of paper and let the world just go?
I would feel comfortable with my decision.
The motto that "America does not torture" looks dandy on a piece of paper, but it just seems so irrelevant on the battlefield. I think people just breakdown and do what they need to do.
You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.
What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.
In certain situations, philosophy gives way to human nature.
I guess my decision hinges on personal rights. If you have a prisoner that can potentially spare the lives of people you are enlisted to protect, are the rights of your prisoner to remain healthy and unharmed greater than the rights of your soldiers who are about to get killed.
No, not to me. I would fell devastated if I could have avoided disaster and I had not done my part. I would have more guilt over not doing than doing.
The problem is that there is a great tendancy for abuse. How does one know that a prisoner actually knows anything. That is why I have strictly limited the role of torture to individuals who we know, know something or at least are highly suspicious (the slippery slope).
That's probably why people don't really want to know about this under the table thingey. They want to ignore that their country might be brualizing countless people who have little chance of knowing anything and maintain the delusion that anytime someone is tortured, American lives are being saved.
Posted by: Busyman
hobbes,
What you just said was, the end justifies the means. I disagree.
I believe in the rule of law and in due process. I do not believe that torture is an acceptable form of interrogation.
I do not believe that torturing people is acceptable, even if it would provide valuable military intelligence.
We cannot condemn people who use torture to obtain information they want. Then do it ourselves when it is us who want that information.
That is just wrong.
Like a mathmatician, I like to test limits.
If a single human knew where the detonation device was that would blow up the Earth, would I coerce him into revealing this location to me so that I could defuse the bomb or would I recognize a law on a piece of paper and let the world just go?
I would feel comfortable with my decision.
The motto that "America does not torture" looks dandy on a piece of paper, but it just seems so irrelevant on the battlefield. I think people just breakdown and do what they need to do.
You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.
What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.
In certain situations, philosophy gives way to human nature.
I guess my decision hinges on personal rights. If you have a prisoner that can potentially spare the lives of people you are enlisted to protect, are the rights of your prisoner to remain healthy and unharmed greater than the rights of your soldiers who are about to get killed.
No, not to me. I would fell devastated if I could have avoided disaster and I had not done my part. I would have more guilt over not doing than doing.
The problem is that there is a great tendancy for abuse. How does one know that a prisoner actually knows anything. That is why I have strictly limited the role of torture to individuals who we know, know something or at least are highly suspicious (the slippery slope).
That's probably why people don't really want to know about this under the table thingey. They want to ignore that their country might be brualizing countless people who have little chance of knowing anything and maintain the delusion that anytime someone is tortured, American lives are being saved.
;)
I think it's funny that moral high grounders want all this spelled out.
Now I am realizing why Bush doesn't want all this spelled out. I mean there all this stuff about secret prisons and prisoner abuse coming out. Whose to say if he signs off on 'no torture' that more torture won't come to light?
I always figured there were secret prisons but I never thought in my lifetime that our country would hit such a low point that this information would be revealed.
Ya can't even have a good shadow government these days.....
I think it's stupid that prisoners have to be treated with dignity and respect.
However what it comes down to is that all countries want to able to treat prisoners badly a la torture, if necessary and don't want their countrymen, if prisoners of another country, treated badly.
Pretty simple.
All those who think that we are lowering our standards because the enemy has are fooling themselves. The standards have been low all along...just not on paper.
Whatever makes you feel better.:happy:
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
See it's not just words to me. People should not be tortured, whatever the justification you may wish to present for it. We must be better than that.
If you say that we are entitled to torture for the "right reasons", then who are we to stop others using torture. Who are we to say that their ends are not sufficient to justify the torture they use. Who are we to make that judgement, we ourselves are torturers.
The end does not justify the means. If the means are wrong, then they are wrong, whatever the end they seek to achieve.
I find the idea of glibly accepting that torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to be shameful.
Posted by: j2k4
See it's not just words to me. People should not be tortured, whatever the justification you may wish to present for it. We must be better than that.
If you say that we are entitled to torture for the "right reasons", then who are we to stop others using torture. Who are we to say that their ends are not sufficient to justify the torture they use. Who are we to make that judgement, we ourselves are torturers.
The end does not justify the means. If the means are wrong, then they are wrong, whatever the end they seek to achieve.
I find the idea of glibly accepting that torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to be shameful.
Quit pissing about.
As to the meds, then?
Posted by: hobbes
See it's not just words to me. People should not be tortured, whatever the justification you may wish to present for it. We must be better than that.
If you say that we are entitled to torture for the "right reasons", then who are we to stop others using torture. Who are we to say that their ends are not sufficient to justify the torture they use. Who are we to make that judgement, we ourselves are torturers.
The end does not justify the means. If the means are wrong, then they are wrong, whatever the end they seek to achieve.
I find the idea of glibly accepting that torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to be shameful.
Could you please link me the thread in which people are being glib.
I think that is disingenuous reflection of the tone of the posts and I must deduct 5 tactics points for said manuveur.
Would you blow up the world and let those in the building die as in the scenarios given? I see it more as knocking down the gun before the bullet can be fired. I knock that hand down whichever way works.
Let us say that your Star Trekky friends beam you into the rigged building but you remain in full communication with your aide at the bombers side. What do you tell him to do? Now your survival becomes self defense and don't people normally do whatever it takes to survive? Why do you physically need to be in the building in order to know what the right thing to do is. You get that bomb defused, anyway you can.
I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.
Posted by: Busyman
See it's not just words to me. People should not be tortured, whatever the justification you may wish to present for it. We must be better than that.
If you say that we are entitled to torture for the "right reasons", then who are we to stop others using torture. Who are we to say that their ends are not sufficient to justify the torture they use. Who are we to make that judgement, we ourselves are torturers.
The end does not justify the means. If the means are wrong, then they are wrong, whatever the end they seek to achieve.
I find the idea of glibly accepting that torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to be shameful.
Could you please link me the thread in which people are being glib.
I think that is disingenuous reflection of the tone of the posts and I must deduct 5 tactics points for said manuveur.
Would you blow up the world and let those in the building die as in the scenarios given? I see it more as knocking down the gun before the bullet can be fired. I knock that hand down whichever way works.
Let us say that your Star Trekky friends beam you into the rigged building but you remain in full communication with your aide at the bombers side. What do you tell him to do? Now your survival becomes self defense and don't people normally do whatever it takes to survive? Why do you physically need to be in the building in order to know what the right thing to do is. You get that bomb defused, anyway you can.
I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.
hobbes some people are just a little more passive about things like that.
JP has already remarked to me that he'd rather beg for his kids life than protect them with a gun. No marks against him for that but it is telling.
Posted by: Busyman
See it's not just words to me. People should not be tortured, whatever the justification you may wish to present for it. We must be better than that.
If you say that we are entitled to torture for the "right reasons", then who are we to stop others using torture. Who are we to say that their ends are not sufficient to justify the torture they use. Who are we to make that judgement, we ourselves are torturers.
The end does not justify the means. If the means are wrong, then they are wrong, whatever the end they seek to achieve.
I find the idea of glibly accepting that torture is sometimes necessary and acceptable to be shameful.
You should see what is considered torture.
I think if a prisoner misses a meal, that's torture.:blink:
Not allowing him proper rest is too, methinks.
Hell I wonder can you even put a prisoner in a darkened room with the only light shone coming from a swinging overhead lamp.
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.
Sorry, that's the way morals work and it is far from being glib. In fact to do so could not be further from glibness.
Posted by: Busyman
I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.
Sorry, that's the way morals work and it is far from being glib. In fact to do so could not be further from glibness.
Would you shoot stab a gentlemen that is about to kill your children?
Posted by: hobbes
I find it shameful that you glibly stand by and watch us all perish.
Sorry, that's the way morals work and it is far from being glib. In fact to do so could not be further from glibness.
I agree entirely. My morals just came to a different conclusion, and with equal disinglibness.
In a difficult situation, what do you actually do and how do you justify to yourself.
The thing I enjoyed about philosophy class was the exercise in taking a principle to it's limit, as I have done here and seeing if it holds up.
For example:
Telling the truth is the right thing to do.
If jpol is hiding behind my counter and a madman with a gun walks in and asks if you are behind the counter, should I tell the truth?
What is the right thing to do?
My obligation to tell him that you are indeed behind the counter is a prima facia (at first appearance) obligation, but my greater obligation is to protect your life, so I lie and say that you have left the building.
By lying I have done the right thing.
I have therefore invalidated the statement that one should always tell the truth.
Just as I have attempted to explain, that in very specific situations, (as the one above, in which, telling the truth is the wrong thing to do) the dictum that the ends don't justify the means can take a similar fall. At first glance I should not violate the rights of my captive, but in reality I am ignoring the rights of those he is going to kill.
I take my morals as seriously as you take yours.
Posted by: j2k4
I'll have to go with Hobbes on this one, JayPee.
Morals are wonderful things, and, in the abstract and a certain short distance, situational ethics suck, but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail.
One can only hope to have honed neural influences finely enough to not preclude a degree of post-action rationalization and justification; the alternative is to be guilt-ridden over wrongful action.
I suppose, too, that the predilection for self-defense and defense of loved-ones plays it's role; we've been through that discussion in other places and at other times.
In any case, however, if one could hold to a non-combative posture in the face of mortal peril, such represents an utter divergence from the instinctual (and hopefully capable) defensive one.
These cannot be reconciled.
Posted by: Everose
Why are drugs like thiopental sodium not used to obtain information, as an alternative to torture?
Too unpredictable or not enough people trained to use it properly where needed?
Posted by: Gripper
May I ask who in this thread has seen a friend killed in battle,or had to take a life.
The answer to that may support your moral highground.
It is easy to debate subjects,not quite so easy to keep thinking clearly while a friend bleeds to death as you try to hold him together.
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
I'll have to go with Hobbes on this one, JayPee.
Morals are wonderful things, and, in the abstract and a certain short distance, situational ethics suck, but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail.
One can only hope to have honed neural influences finely enough to not preclude a degree of post-action rationalization and justification; the alternative is to be guilt-ridden over wrongful action.
I suppose, too, that the predilection for self-defense and defense of loved-ones plays it's role; we've been through that discussion in other places and at other times.
In any case, however, if one could hold to a non-combative posture in the face of mortal peril, such represents an utter divergence from the instinctual (and hopefully capable) defensive one.
These cannot be reconciled.
" ....but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail." How often is torture carried out under such circumstances. I had presumed we were dealing with the extraction of intelligence from prisoners. Which would by definition be premeditated and not in "the heat of the moment".
Posted by: j2k4
It is easy to debate subjects,not quite so easy to keep thinking clearly while a friend bleeds to death as you try to hold him together.
True enough.
I am well aware, though, of people who have done this.
Their testimonies still fall to both sides of the issue.
I don't think one has to have been a soldier/combatant to have a valid debate, gripper; do you?
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
Sorry, that's the way morals work and it is far from being glib. In fact to do so could not be further from glibness.
I agree entirely. My morals just came to a different conclusion, and with equal disinglibness.
In a difficult situation, what do you actually do and how do you justify to yourself.
The thing I enjoyed about philosophy class was the exercise in taking a principle to it's limit, as I have done here and seeing if it holds up.
For example:
Telling the truth is the right thing to do.
If jpol is hiding behind my counter and a madman with a gun walks in and asks if you are behind the counter, should I tell the truth?
What is the right thing to do?
My obligation to tell him that you are indeed behind the counter is a prima facia (at first appearance) obligation, but my greater obligation is to protect your life, so I lie and say that you have left the building.
By lying I have done the right thing.
I have therefore invalidated the statement that one should always tell the truth.
Just as I have attempted to explain, that in very specific situations, (as the one above, in which, telling the truth is the wrong thing to do) the dictum that the ends don't justify the means can take a similar fall. At first glance I should not violate the rights of my captive, but in reality I am ignoring the rights of those he is going to kill.
I take my morals as seriously as you take yours.
I am absolutely certain you do.
In the EU we have the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), I have mentioned this before. This gives people certain rights, however they are not all treated the same way. There is for example the right to privacy and everyone can expect that. However, under certain conditions and with the proper authority, that can be breached. An example would be the investigation of serious crimes.
Some rights are inviolable, these include the right not to be tortured. No matter the justification. This is a position with which I agree, I think that torture is wrong and that the fact that the State decides there are reasons which justify it makes no difference.
As quoted earlier
There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order. Article 4 of the Charter adheres to both the meaning and the scope of this universal prohibition.
As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.
Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.
Posted by: j2k4
" ....but in the midst of the action and the heat of the moment, the blood runs a bit hotter, and instincts must prevail." How often is torture carried out under such circumstances. I had presumed we were dealing with the extraction of intelligence from prisoners. Which would by definition be premeditated and not in "the heat of the moment".
Quite right; I went a bit off track making my point.
Allow me to attribute the drawing out of the "heated moment" phraseology to Hobbes' 'JP is hiding, and I won't give him up' and 'I can save these people by extracting a number from this guy' scenarios.
Do I support premeditated torture?
No-I'd rather "medicate" to get such info.
In short-time circumstances (in the field), that policy could change, but one would assume a prison (Abu Ghraib, in this case) to be reasonably well-equipped for interrogative purposes.
There is a relevant story about the American General Black Jack Pershing I'm going to look for...
Posted by: j2k4
Some rights are inviolable, these include the right not to be tortured. No matter the justification. This is a position with which I agree, I think that torture is wrong and that the fact that the State decides there are reasons which justify it makes no difference.
As quoted earlier
There can be no exception to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as set out in article 15.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, (ECHR) which allows no derogation, even in the case of a state of emergency or to maintain law and order. Article 4 of the Charter adheres to both the meaning and the scope of this universal prohibition.
As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.
Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.
The difficulty would seem to be that Al Qaeda is not a state, doesn't recognize such prohibitions, and warring parties strive for operational/tactical equality/superiority.
One side is to be hamstrung from "stooping", as it were, while the opposition is free not to "rise" to a higher standard.
This is the locus, is it not?
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.
There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.
But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.
Posted by: Busyman
Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.
There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.
But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.
Cool.
I have your kids stashed somewhere and they are going to die in 4 hours. You have me prisoner.
What do you do?
There is a dirty bomb set to go off in Scotland in 4 hours. I know the location but fuck you, you bastard!!!
What do you do?
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.
There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.
But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.
Cool.
I have your kids stashed somewhere and they are going to die in 4 hours. You have me prisoner.
What do you do?
There is a dirty bomb set to go off in Scotland in 4 hours. I know the location but fuck you, you bastard!!!
What do you do?
Phone Harry Callaghan, obviousement.
Posted by: Gripper
It is easy to debate subjects,not quite so easy to keep thinking clearly while a friend bleeds to death as you try to hold him together.
True enough.
I am well aware, though, of people who have done this.
Their testimonies still fall to both sides of the issue.
I don't think one has to have been a soldier/combatant to have a valid debate, gripper; do you?
No,true enough but it tends to colour your thinking on such things.
Terrorists do not play by the geneva convention,no mercy and no quarter should be offered to them.
A martyr can't kill you.
Posted by: hobbes
I am absolutely certain you do.
As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.
Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.
I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?
When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?
That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread.
It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.
Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.
The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.
It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.
I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.
I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.
Posted by: j2k4
Whatever else you may contend, Iraq was a State when it tortured our captured airmen and paraded them on television.
There are many States which carry out torture. On what basis do we tell them that our ends justify torture, but theirs do not.
But again that is just an aside, the main point is that I believe torture is wrong.
Noted; I was referring only to Al Qaeda and terrorists in general.
Posted by: j2k4
True enough.
I am well aware, though, of people who have done this.
Their testimonies still fall to both sides of the issue.
I don't think one has to have been a soldier/combatant to have a valid debate, gripper; do you?
No,true enough but it tends to colour your thinking on such things.
Terrorists do not play by the geneva convention,no mercy and no quarter should be offered to them.
A martyr can't kill you.
Agreed, on all three points.
Posted by: Busyman
I am absolutely certain you do.
As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.
Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.
I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?
When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?
That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread.
It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.
Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.
The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.
It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.
I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.
I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.
I stand by my initial stance. Torture is wrong. :snooty:
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
I am absolutely certain you do.
As a slight aside to this, if you decide that your State can choose to torture, in certain circumstances, then surely you must allow other States to do the same. How can you argue that torture is wrong, except when we decide it's OK for us to do it.
Was it OK for our captured military to be tortured for information. That is the logical conclusion to your argument.
I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?
When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?
That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread.
It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.
Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.
The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.
It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.
I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.
I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.
Your point seems to be that it is OK for your State to torture in order to gain military intelligence, so long as they don't get caught. Your argument also reads that it is such a useful weapon that the "good" it does outweighs the fact that it is wrong. I and the EU disagree, however we also disagree on various other things, so that's OK. If you (plural) choose to torture your prisoners it is a matter for you, however you must see that it makes you no better than them.
And again you make value judgements on it. Our torture is OK because we gain intelligence from it. Theirs is not because .... what you said. You are making it a one way street, you are saying that torture isOK so long as it's torture which the US approves of. Frayed knot, old bean. If you say that States can torture under certain circumstances, then it's up to the State to decide on the circumstances, not you. Unless you have an agreement on that, but you decided the agreement didn't count.
"That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread." I don't really understand, why does it not apply here.
"I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury." Are you Jack Nicholson at all.
Posted by: j2k4
I wouldn't argue that at all, why would I?
When have I ever even hinted that this is somehow a one way street and a US only priviledge?
That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread.
It acts as an incentive to curb the survival instinct as public knowledge that you are torturing will lead to the suffering of your captured soldiers. It you are going to torture, it had better well be worth the risk, because if it were discovered, the results would be catastrophic.
Parading soldiers around in no way gains military information. That is simply psychological torture. Torturing a bunch of 18 y/o's who know know next to nothing is also not appropriate. Just like torturing Iraqi grunts at Abu Garab was wrong. These tortures were done out of spite, not necessity.
The point is that it is impossible to write on a piece of paper when and where excess force is approriate. It is left up to the discretion of the military leader in charge and it hoped that it is used appropriately.
It allows room for abuse, but it is also a very potent weapon in the arsenal.
I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury.
I somehow feel confident that the animal JP would show up if you were in that building ready to explode. The suicide bomber is right there with you and refuses to defuse the bomb. You would just sit down and wait to die, or perhaps inflict a little pain to help him change his mind.
Your point seems to be that it is OK for your State to torture in order to gain military intelligence, so long as they don't get caught. Your argument also reads that it is such a useful weapon that the "good" it does outweighs the fact that it is wrong. I and the EU disagree, however we also disagree on various other things, so that's OK. If you (plural) choose to torture your prisoners it is a matter for you, however you must see that it makes you no better than them.
And again you make value judgements on it. Our torture is OK because we gain intelligence from it. Theirs is not because .... what you said. You are making it a one way street, you are saying that torture isOK so long as it's torture which the US approves of. Frayed knot, old bean. If you say that States can torture under certain circumstances, then it's up to the State to decide on the circumstances, not you. Unless you have an agreement on that, but you decided the agreement didn't count.
"That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread." I don't really understand, why does it not apply here.
"I would love to live by a code of ethics that is immutable and I could in my affluent drawing room with a cup of brandy and handy advice for one and all, but certain people are living at the throat of the beast and don't have such a detached luxury." Are you Jack Nicholson at all.
So, then.
Would using medical means to extract information be cheating, or not?
I feel being made to wait for your answer is unduly tortuous, and if you do not respond, I shall petition the U.N. for a resolution you may ignore for 10-12 years, at which point I'll attack you unilaterally.
Just so you know.
Posted by: hobbes
[QUOTE=hobbes]
Your point seems to be that it is OK for your State to torture in order to gain military intelligence, so long as they don't get caught. Your argument also reads that it is such a useful weapon that the "good" it does outweighs the fact that it is wrong. I and the EU disagree, however we also disagree on various other things, so that's OK. If you (plural) choose to torture your prisoners it is a matter for you, however you must see that it makes you no better than them.
And again you make value judgements on it. Our torture is OK because we gain intelligence from it. Theirs is not because .... what you said. You are making it a one way street, you are saying that torture isOK so long as it's torture which the US approves of. Frayed knot, old bean. If you say that States can torture under certain circumstances, then it's up to the State to decide on the circumstances, not you. Unless you have an agreement on that, but you decided the agreement didn't count.
"That is why such things as the Genenva convention were created, but such an agreement does not apply here. That was the entire crux of my posting in the thread." I don't really understand, why does it not apply here.
.
I'm not saying that it is "ok" if they are not caught. I'm saying that certain situations will arise in which they will do it anyway. Despite repercussions, if caught. I am placing philosphy to the side and acknowledging the animals that we are. This is admitting that it does happen, it is saying that under certain circumstances I can understand why it was done. That does not mean that it is a "good thing" or that I encourage a good stealthy ass beating.
I have outlined specific examples in which it would be ok, to my conscience, to torture. I have clearly stated why the use of torture at both Abu Garab AND the given example involving US Military soldiers was inappropriate.
I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?
The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it.
I see no obligation for a unilateral application. But when the general public found out what was going on at Abu Garab, the overwhelming reaction I noted State-side was extreme disappointment. Our dirty laundry, cut and dry, out there for the whole world to look at and re-enforce people beliefs or alienate allies. Stupid fucking Americans, no better than Saddam. Americans have a sense of what is appropriate and we should definitely be better than that.
And again, even in the presence of your fancy documents and both sides fully voicing agreement about upholding the Geneva convention to the letter, torture still occurs, but the incidence is far lower because any documented violation would have serious consequences, such as war crimes convictions.
I'm not FOR torture, I don't enjoy it, but I do admit that in certain circumstances it is a necessary evil. This has been clearly illustrated. You would stand by while your fellow soldiers were being blown to bits and I would be inflicting major pain upon my enemy. After all, he is a suicide bomber, he wants to die. No discussion will help, you need to talk to him in a language he can understand--pain.
I'm getting mine out alive and you can stand their with your crisp document explaining how what you did was the right thing to do.
I have also clearly stated that one must determine an acceptable standard of taking care of the grunts (common soldier). I am against the systematic beating, starving, terrorizing and humilating soldiers out of spite or hatred. Put them in a cell and treat them as we treat our own inmates. That care should be independent of what the other side is doing. Torturing their grunts in no way aides our cause. That would take us down to their level.
They shoot at us and kill our soldiers, we shoot back and kill theirs. That makes us no better than them either, but I suppose we'll keep shooting.
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
j2
Sorry, but I just don't know enough about it.
How are drugs administered.
What are the immediate, mid term and long effects of the drugs used.
Do they cause physical damage.
Do they cause emotional damage.
Sorry I just don't know, but I will opine when I can.
Posted by: Rat Faced
The thing about torture, which is probably the main reason it stopped being used in the "Civilised Countries"... is that you get to hear what the guy being tortured thinks you want to hear, which is not necessarily the truth.
You therefore go and get the next guy thats been implicated by a bad method of information gathering and the cycle goes on.
You follow false leads and torture totally innocent people.
Then some nice big country comes along and changes the regime because you used those methods... (after their first "reason" is found to be false) and then you find they are doing the same thing.
Posted by: Mr JP Fugley
I'm not saying that it is "ok" if they are not caught. I'm saying that certain situations will arise in which they will do it anyway. Despite repercussions, if caught. I am placing philosphy to the side and acknowledging the animals that we are. This is admitting that it does happen, it is saying that under certain circumstances I can understand why it was done. That does not mean that it is a "good thing" or that I encourage a good stealthy ass beating.
I have outlined specific examples in which it would be ok, to my conscience, to torture. I have clearly stated why the use of torture at both Abu Garab AND the given example involving US Military soldiers was inappropriate.
I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?
The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it.
I see no obligation for a unilateral application. But when the general public found out what was going on at Abu Garab, the overwhelming reaction I noted State-side was extreme disappointment. Our dirty laundry, cut and dry, out there for the whole world to look at and re-enforce people beliefs or alienate allies. Stupid fucking Americans, no better than Saddam. Americans have a sense of what is appropriate and we should definitely be better than that.
And again, even in the presence of your fancy documents and both sides fully voicing agreement about upholding the Geneva convention to the letter, torture still occurs, but the incidence is far lower because any documented violation would have serious consequences, such as war crimes convictions.
I'm not FOR torture, I don't enjoy it, but I do admit that in certain circumstances it is a necessary evil. This has been clearly illustrated. You would stand by while your fellow soldiers were being blown to bits and I would be inflicting major pain upon my enemy. After all, he is a suicide bomber, he wants to die. No discussion will help, you need to talk to him in a language he can understand--pain.
I'm getting mine out alive and you can stand their with your crisp document explaining how what you did was the right thing to do.
I have also clearly stated that one must determine an acceptable standard of taking care of the grunts (common soldier). I am against the systematic beating, starving, terrorizing and humilating soldiers out of spite or hatred. Put them in a cell and treat them as we treat our own inmates. That care should be independent of what the other side is doing. Torturing their grunts in no way aides our cause. That would take us down to their level.
They shoot at us and kill our soldiers, we shoot back and kill theirs. That makes us no better than them either, but I suppose we'll keep shooting.
Gotcha, it's OK to torture certain people.
If they are not soldiers then they are criminals. Is it OK to torture all criminals, or just some. Who's deciding this time.
If we aren't torturing the "grunts" can we torture the soldiers who may have specific intelligence that can help us. Say we capture a General, can we torture her.
"I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?" Sorry, I missed the meeting where we agreed that you (plural) got to say when torture was OK. How did the vote go.
"The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it." We did, does it not count when the other country didn't.
Posted by: Busyman
I'm not saying that it is "ok" if they are not caught. I'm saying that certain situations will arise in which they will do it anyway. Despite repercussions, if caught. I am placing philosphy to the side and acknowledging the animals that we are. This is admitting that it does happen, it is saying that under certain circumstances I can understand why it was done. That does not mean that it is a "good thing" or that I encourage a good stealthy ass beating.
I have outlined specific examples in which it would be ok, to my conscience, to torture. I have clearly stated why the use of torture at both Abu Garab AND the given example involving US Military soldiers was inappropriate.
I have given specific examples, which have a broader application. It would apply to ANY country at ANY time, is that clear enough?
The Genenva convention has no bearing here as the parties involved (particularly Al-Queda) have signed no agreement to uphold it.
I see no obligation for a unilateral application. But when the general public found out what was going on at Abu Garab, the overwhelming reaction I noted State-side was extreme disappointment. Our dirty laundry, cut and dry, out there for the whole world to look at and re-enforce people beliefs or alienate allies. Stupid fucking Americans, no better than Saddam. Americans have a sense of what is appropriate and we should definitely be better than that.
And again, even in the presence of your fancy documents and both sides fully voicing agreement about upholding the Geneva convention to the letter, torture still occurs, but the incidence is far lower because any documented violation would have serious consequences, such as war crimes convictions.
I'm not FOR torture, I don't enjoy it, but I do admit that in certain circumstances it is a necessary evil. This has been clearly illustrated. You would stand by while your fellow soldiers were being blown to bits and I would be inflicting major pain upon my enemy. After all, he is a suicide bomber, he wants to die. No discussion will help, you need to talk to him in a language he can understand--pain.
I'm getting mine out alive and you can stand their with your crisp document explaining how what you did was the right thing to do.
I have also clearly stated that one must determine an acceptable standard of taking care of the grunts (common soldier). I am against the systematic beating, starving, terrorizing and humilating soldiers out of spite or hatred. Put them in a cell and treat them as we treat our own inmates. That care should be independent of what the other side is doing. Torturing their grunts in no way aides our cause. That would take us down to their level.
They shoot at us and kill our soldiers, we shoot back and kill theirs. That makes us no better than them either, but I suppose we'll keep shooting.
I stand by my initial stance. Torture is wrong. :snooty:
:ermm:
Posted by: Rat Faced
I stand by my initial stance. Torture is wrong. :snooty:
I concur.
I do believe that the current "reason" for the invasion was because Hussain used this... kettle/black :snooty:
Posted by: ilw
Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.
Posted by: Busyman
Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.
Anyone who believes torture is new (or secret imprisonment) is an idiot. I'm sure America didn't just start doing it.
Again the bandwagon hypemobole is in full force. Some photos from Abu Grabass prison "surface" and people that that type of behavior "just started".:lol: :lol:
Posted by: Agrajag
Anyone who believes torture is new (or secret imprisonment) is an idiot. I'm sure America didn't just start doing it.
Again the bandwagon hypemobole is in full force. Some photos from Abu Grabass prison "surface" and people that that type of behavior "just started".:lol: :lol:
That's OK well, if it's been going on for a while.
Posted by: j2k4
Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.
What of the fact the Geneva Conventions were a charter for nations involved in war, and the inconvenient (for us, convenient for them) circumstance that Al Qaeda doesn't fit the mold?
Why shouldn't we, instead of hewing to or ignoring the Geneva Conventions, concoct a document tailored to terrorists?
Authorship could be left to the U.N.
Should be good for a larf or two...
Posted by: hobbes
Who gets to do the torture, would you specially train a cadre of sick f*cks to do it or maybe you would just let anyone who enlists have a crack at it? Personally I reckon you should arrange it like jury duty and force citizens to do it.
Is terrorism really such a threat that you need to drop a couple of hundred years of civilisation? I bet Americans pre 911 wouldn't have believed that in 4 years they would be using chemical weapons, considering torture, imprisoning people for several years without trial, thinking about dropping out of the geneva convention and generally forgetting that human rights exist at all.
The world really didn't change that much.
I think that the issue boils down to the actual impact of this petition.
Will it prevent what happened at Abu Garab? No, that was already illegal.
Most of us scoff at it as a politicians game.
Being opposed to laws which prevent torture without exception does not mean one is "pro-torture" similar to people who are against anti-abortion laws are not pro-abortion.
Certain situations merit certain actions, which my conscience has no problem with, as I have given examples for in this thread.
I don't want absolute rules about when and where to torture, I just want our military leaders to be given the latitude to use the appropriate force necessary and for this to be at their discretion.
I think the Geneva Convention was a fine way for how to provide accomadation for the average soldier. It gives piece of mind to families, on both sides, that their sons are not in tiny cages being starved and beaten as a routine.
Nobody has any problem recognizing that Abu Garab was unacceptable and it wasn't the "rules" which permitted this, it was enforcement of the rules.
Torture, as I have defined in specific cases, will always occur, no matter the country, no matter the law.
We all have a gestalt of what is appropriate or defensible.
If we approve legislature that says "no" to torture, no exceptions, then the man who saves his fellow soldiers by inflicting pain on a suicide bomber to defuse his weapon has to deal with war crimes charges.
War presents unique opportunities, every country and it's citizens have a threshold which dictates what actions are defensible and which are inacceptable.
Why support something that is just a political game, that will tied the hands of those who need to get things done, perhaps in a way we don't want to think about.
So much is done by our countries by our sectret services, for the sake of our futures, that we don't know about. We have a sense something is going on, but we don't really want to know, lest we have to admit to our sins.
The US has placed many South American dictators in charge in the last century, that have been just as bad as Saddam. All countries are selfishly and cruelly looking out for themselves, we all know this, but pretend not to, just to think we are somehow civilized and clean.
Being "civilized" is a complete joke. Strip any man of those things he takes for granted- food, clothing, shelter, security and you will see the true animal bare his fangs.
There is nothing civilized about man, that is just an act we portray when we our basic needs are satisfied.
Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.
Posted by: Busyman
Anyone who believes torture is new (or secret imprisonment) is an idiot. I'm sure America didn't just start doing it.
Again the bandwagon hypemobole is in full force. Some photos from Abu Grabass prison "surface" and people that that type of behavior "just started".:lol: :lol:
That's OK well, if it's been going on for a while.
Fact of life.
Posted by: Agrajag
That's OK well, if it's been going on for a while.
Fact of life.
So are poverty and slavery. Let's try to stop them as well.
Posted by: Agrajag
Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Posted by: Busyman
Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.
I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.
You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.
Posted by: Agrajag
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.
I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.
There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.
The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.
Posted by: Busyman
Tbh I think they don't want it 'cause there is the likelihood (especially nowadays) that they'll be caught and be subject to the world.
I don't want government sanctioned torture on the books either. However, I am also a realist and understand that it is sometimes necessary.
There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.
The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.
When is torture necessary?:huh:
Posted by: Rat Faced
Never
Its counter-productive.
You hear what the guy getting tortured thinks u want to hear, so the pain stops.
He will say he's guilty, even if he's innocent... and give "intelligence" that is just as useful.
Posted by: Agrajag
There is a difference between it being strategically superior and it being necessary. If your military torture people to get intelligence which then assists in their campaign, then they have saved resources. That does not mean that the torture was necessary. You may argue that it was justifiable (in fact both you and hobbes do), however that does not make the torture necessary.
The only argument I have seen here boils down to, torture is wrong, but the end justifies the means.
When is torture necessary?:huh:
You tell me, it's you that's saying it's necessary, not me.
Posted by: hobbes
Being against this political game does not mean I enjoy or support torture, just that sometimes things are done on our behalf, that change the course of conflict, that we don't really want to know about. Also we do not wish that the people that perform these acts on our behalf be sentenced to war crimes.
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread. I suppose the Scottish chaps just like to make sweeping generalizations without proper statistical data.:wacko:
Be assured that torture is actively practiced by all governments in times of conflict, despite what you have on your piece of paper.
Our example:
You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.
What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.
Please answer this very specific question, which you have avoided about 5 or 6 times now.
Posted by: Busyman
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread. I suppose the Scottish chaps just like to make sweeping generalizations without proper statistical data.:wacko:
Be assured that torture is actively practiced by all governments in times of conflict, despite what you have on your piece of paper.
Our example:
You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.
What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.
Please answer this very specific question, which you have avoided about 5 or 6 times now.
You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.
Both Rat and JP know sometimes it is necessary. It's the dirty little fact of life that puts them in denial.
Posted by: Busyman
Fact of life.
So are poverty and slavery. Let's try to stop them as well.
We do not have to resort to poverty or slavery in a time of crisis.:dry:
I can see instances where one would have to resort to torture.
Posted by: Agrajag
You really are Jack Nicholson with this, "You can't handle the truth" mentality. I do want to know what they are doing and I want it stopped if they are torturing folk.
I do not want people torturing others on my behalf. FFS you even want the people who are doing it to be self regulating.
It's obviously a cultural thing. It seems to be chaps from the USA who are more able to accept torture (in specific circumstances). Am I correct in saying that your Govt will not legislate against the "right" to torture.
Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread.
It's more to do with the fact that your Govt will not legislate agains torture. They will not preclude it's use, when required. Whereas the EU specifically bans it's use and goes to the bother of saying that it is not allowed, even in times of national crisis.
Your Govt says that it is bad, but sometimes we might have to do it. The EU says that it is bad and that there is no circumstance where it is acceptable.
I think most people can see the difference.
Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.
Posted by: Busyman
Never
Its counter-productive.
You hear what the guy getting tortured thinks u want to hear, so the pain stops.
He will say he's guilty, even if he's innocent... and give "intelligence" that is just as useful.
Ohhh Rat....that's so sweeping. Are you saying now that torture never works?:lol: :lol:
Posted by: Agrajag
Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread. I suppose the Scottish chaps just like to make sweeping generalizations without proper statistical data.:wacko:
Be assured that torture is actively practiced by all governments in times of conflict, despite what you have on your piece of paper.
Our example:
You have a building filled with people and a bomb attached to the door. You have the man who set the bomb and he knows the number to turn the bomb off.
What do you do? That writing on a silly piece of paper seems so meaningless, as you watch the helpless trapped victims press their faces against the window glass, hoping for salvation.
Please answer this very specific question, which you have avoided about 5 or 6 times now.
You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.
Both Rat and JP know sometimes it is necessary. It's the dirty little fact of life that puts them in denial.
The fact that you see torture as necessary speaks volumes about you, not other people.
Posted by: Agrajag
So are poverty and slavery. Let's try to stop them as well.
We do not have to resort to poverty or slavery in a time of crisis.:dry:
However they are facts of life, which is your "justification" for torture.
Posted by: HeavyMetalParkingLot
Why would you make a sweeping statement about chaps in the US based on the comments of 2 or 3 people, particularly when an American started the thread.
It's more to do with the fact that your Govt will not legislate agains torture. They will not preclude it's use, when required. Whereas the EU specifically bans it's use and goes to the bother of saying that it is not allowed, even in times of national crisis.
Your Govt says that it is bad, but sometimes we might have to do it. The EU says that it is bad and that there is no circumstance where it is acceptable.
I think most people can see the difference.
Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.
It's a good thing EU politicians would never lie!
Like when they say the same thing about slavery, yet the UK is a human trafficing hub for the world.
Posted by: hobbes
Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.
No, it is the head on head collision of philsophy with reality. It is testing the limits of a statement.
It is like saying that abortion is wrong. Then realizing special circumstances such as rape or when the pregnancy will cause complications that will mean the death of the mother.
I created for you a scenario which you refuse to answer. Please answer it. You are not in your comfy home, telling interweb people how they should act, but in the battlefield, in the above scenario.
Ready, action!
Posted by: Busyman
We do not have to resort to poverty or slavery in a time of crisis.:dry:
However they are facts of life, which is your "justification" for torture.
They sure aren't necessary.:ermm:
Posted by: Busyman
Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.
No, it is the head on head collision of philsophy with reality. It is testing the limits of a statement.
It is like saying that abortion is wrong. Then realizing special circumstances such as rape or when the pregnancy will cause complications that will mean the death of the mother.
I created for you a scenario which you refuse to answer. Please answer it. You are not in you comfy home telling interweb people how they should act, but in the battlefield, in the above scenario.
Ready, action!
He never answered the question about abortion that I posed ages ago.
An aside..
If abortion is wrong then in cases of rape or incest, abortion is still wrong 'cause you are killing a child.
Actually I have it wrong as far as him answering. JP answered that stuff like that has to be taken on case by case basis.........
Posted by: Busyman
You did not answer my questions regarding your children and whether you'd torture an offender to get your kids out of imminent danger either 'cause you would do nothing and you'd let your children die or you'd torture the offender thus reducing your argument to rubble.
Both Rat and JP know sometimes it is necessary. It's the dirty little fact of life that puts them in denial.
The fact that you see torture as necessary speaks volumes about you, not other people.
It's not necessary all the time.
It would have to go on a case by case basis.
:ermm:
What speaks volumes is that when it comes down to it, you would curl up and die and allow your children to die (and your wife and friends).
I would not.
The problem that I see regarding torture is that I think governments sometimes have a low justification for it.
Posted by: Agrajag
Your argument is no more than, "the end justifies the means", no matter how much you want to spin it.
No, it is the head on head collision of philsophy with reality. It is testing the limits of a statement.
It is like saying that abortion is wrong. Then realizing special circumstances such as rape or when the pregnancy will cause complications that will mean the death of the mother.
I created for you a scenario which you refuse to answer. Please answer it. You are not in your comfy home, telling interweb people how they should act, but in the battlefield, in the above scenario.
Ready, action!
I am in my comfy home, as it happens. However I am not telling anyone how they should act. I am expressing my opinion on what is right and what is wrong.
Your argument is still no more sophisticated than "the end justifies the means" and well you know it.
Posted by: hobbes
I am in my comfy home, as it happens. However I am not telling anyone how they should act. I am expressing my opinion on what is right and what is wrong.
Your argument is still no more sophisticated than "the end justifies the means" and well you know it.
On the contrary, I have been attempting to point out that this is not the case.
Lets make the point crystal clear in that the enemy will not be detonating a bomb, but releasing a powerful nerve gas which will painfully kill your fellow soldiers.
On one hand your have the rights of the enemy not to be tortured, on the other you have the rights of your soldiers not to be tortured.
On must simply make a choice.
You may either violate the rights of your enemy, who is actively attempting to torture, or violate the rights of your fellow soldiers as you watch them suffer.
To me this is equivalent to favoring abortion when the pregnancy will cause the death of the Mother. A choice must be made.
Special circumstances, case by case scenarios, that's what I'm talking about when I say, "I can envision unique circumstances arising in the setting of war in which I could see a justification for torture". It is not a popular thing to say, but I call them as I see them.
Posted by: Agrajag
I am in my comfy home, as it happens. However I am not telling anyone how they should act. I am expressing my opinion on what is right and what is wrong.
Your argument is still no more sophisticated than "the end justifies the means" and well you know it.
On the contrary, I have been attempting to point out that this is not the case.
Lets make the point crystal clear in that the enemy will not be detonating a bomb, but releasing a powerful nerve gas which will painfully kill your fellow soldiers.
On one hand your have the rights of the enemy not to be tortured, on the other you have the rights of your soldiers not to be tortured.
On must simply make a choice.
You may either violate the rights of your enemy, who is actively attempting to torture, or violate the rights of your fellow soldiers as you watch them suffer.
To me this is equivalent to favoring abortion when the pregnancy will cause the death of the Mother. A choice must be made.
Special circumstances, case by case scenarios, that's what I'm talking about when I say, "I can envision unique circumstances arising in the setting of war in which I could see a justification for torture". It is not a popular thing to say, but I call them as I see them.
Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.
Posted by: Busyman
On the contrary, I have been attempting to point out that this is not the case.
Lets make the point crystal clear in that the enemy will not be detonating a bomb, but releasing a powerful nerve gas which will painfully kill your fellow soldiers.
On one hand your have the rights of the enemy not to be tortured, on the other you have the rights of your soldiers not to be tortured.
On must simply make a choice.
You may either violate the rights of your enemy, who is actively attempting to torture, or violate the rights of your fellow soldiers as you watch them suffer.
To me this is equivalent to favoring abortion when the pregnancy will cause the death of the Mother. A choice must be made.
Special circumstances, case by case scenarios, that's what I'm talking about when I say, "I can envision unique circumstances arising in the setting of war in which I could see a justification for torture". It is not a popular thing to say, but I call them as I see them.
Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.
Sometimes it does.
Posted by: Agrajag
Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.
Sometimes it does.
At least you admit that you feel that way.
Posted by: Busyman
Sometimes it does.
At least you admit that you feel that way.
CaptainObvious.
You gotta take things on a case by case basis.
Torturing an offender to give me the combination or whateverthefuck to save my wife and kids from imminent danger is a no-brainer for me.
The end - my wife and kids are alive. The means - torture
Torturing some fella for the combination to a million dollars is despicable.
The end - I'm reeeotch, beeotch. The means - torture
Posted by: Agrajag
At least you admit that you feel that way.
CaptainObvious.
You gotta take things on a case by case basis.
Torturing an offender to give me the combination or whateverthefuck to save my wife and kids from imminent danger is a no-brainer for me.
The end - my wife and kids are alive. The means - torture
Torturing some fella for the combination to a million dollars is despicable.
The end - I'm reeeotch, beeotch. The means - torture
WWJD
Posted by: j2k4
CaptainObvious.
You gotta take things on a case by case basis.
Torturing an offender to give me the combination or whateverthefuck to save my wife and kids from imminent danger is a no-brainer for me.
The end - my wife and kids are alive. The means - torture
Torturing some fella for the combination to a million dollars is despicable.
The end - I'm reeeotch, beeotch. The means - torture
WWJD
A very good question, that.
To continue, what would your reaction be should you discover that your government (a signatory to the non-torture/human-rights instrument you have quoted) has indeed engaged in torture of purported participants in an imminent terrorist act?
I guess what I'm asking is whether (from your comfy home) you could consider for us the possibility that merely thinking a course of action correct (which quality may even be philosophically provable) does not preclude a human failure and departure from the desired behavior?
Would you be just, like, totally destroyed, and have to move to Canada?
And what about the drugs, BTW?
If there were no ill-effect, that is...
Posted by: hobbes
[QUOTE=hobbes]
Which is still, "the end justifies the means", just with "fancy dan" decoration.
No a choice has to made. Whether you do it by acting or not acting, a choice is made.
What is with this "end justifies the means" obsession. Did you read this in a nice little book and decide that it was some absolute truth which had no exception. Seems to me, it, like any piece of sound advice, at some point it breaks down.
Seems to me you just keep repeating it like some Tourettian mantra and just as the Tourettes' child can do amazingly quick math calculations, in application of this to the real world, he can't even figure our how much a candy bar costs.
Philosophy/ reality must at some point meet.
Posted by: Agrajag
What is with this "end justifies the means" obsession.
I think it's a glib thing.
I just don't believe that torture is OK, sometimes.
Which is the substance of your argument.
Posted by: hobbes
What is with this "end justifies the means" obsession.
I think it's a glib thing.
I just don't believe that torture is OK, sometimes.
Which is the substance of your argument.
So you let those people die?
Yes/No.
Posted by: Agrajag
I think it's a glib thing.
I just don't believe that torture is OK, sometimes.
Which is the substance of your argument.
So you let those people die?
Yes/No.
Still the same argument "the end justifies the means.".
If that's OK with you, cool.
Posted by: Rat Faced
Never
Its counter-productive.
You hear what the guy getting tortured thinks u want to hear, so the pain stops.
He will say he's guilty, even if he's innocent... and give "intelligence" that is just as useful.
Ohhh Rat....that's so sweeping. Are you saying now that torture never works?:lol: :lol:
I never said that.
I said it was counter productive and causes more problems than it solves.
You act on "intelligence" that is false, then dig yourself into a deeper hole that "requires" more torture. You will not know if the intelligence is false until you act upon it.
Its a vicious circle with a lot of innocents gettng hurt, and creating more enemies.
There have been numerous cases where people have been "caught" specifically so they can be tortured and give false information, to lead the enemy into a trap of some sort.
I agree however, all Intelligence Agencies use it.. however illegal it is in their particular country. They always have, and always will.
However there are surer means of getting the information.
Torture is quick, but the intelligence is shaky at best.
Drugs/Brainwashing/Psychology/Hypnosis and combinations of these methods are sure... but a lot slower, and require skill in their use so there are a lot fewer people that can actually do it properly.
Im not saying this is "right" and "moral" either.. just stating facts.
The only reason Torture has been exposed was due to the shear numbers of suspects they needed to "question", the vast majority of which were innocent of any crime. They cant let them go now though... as their treatment has ensured that the 1st thing they do now will be to join the insurgents. Way to go.
As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?
Would you trust the numbers he gave you?
Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.
The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.
With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.
Posted by: hobbes
As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?
Would you trust the numbers he gave you?
Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.
The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.
With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.
Rat, I created a hypothetical scenario.
You have chosen to nitpick the actual mechanisms of how might unfold.
We have a robot that is going to go over to the keypad and punch the numbers. You assure the prisoner that the torture will continue for the weeks and monthe to follow if the bomb goes off.
I would torture that person to save the lives of those in the building, would you?
Yes/No.
Posted by: Busyman
Ohhh Rat....that's so sweeping. Are you saying now that torture never works?:lol: :lol:
I never said that.
I said it was counter productive and causes more problems than it solves.
You act on "intelligence" that is false, then dig yourself into a deeper hole that "requires" more torture. You will not know if the intelligence is false until you act upon it.
Its a vicious circle with a lot of innocents gettng hurt, and creating more enemies.
There have been numerous cases where people have been "caught" specifically so they can be tortured and give false information, to lead the enemy into a trap of some sort.
I agree however, all Intelligence Agencies use it.. however illegal it is in their particular country. They always have, and always will.
However there are surer means of getting the information.
Torture is quick, but the intelligence is shaky at best.
Drugs/Brainwashing/Psychology/Hypnosis and combinations of these methods are sure... but a lot slower, and require skill in their use so there are a lot fewer people that can actually do it properly.
Im not saying this is "right" and "moral" either.. just stating facts.
The only reason Torture has been exposed was due to the shear numbers of suspects they needed to "question", the vast majority of which were innocent of any crime. They cant let them go now though... as their treatment has ensured that the 1st thing they do now will be to join the insurgents. Way to go.
As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?
Would you trust the numbers he gave you?
Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.
The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.
With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.
Good lord, I don't advocate mass torture to possibly come up with a tidbit of nothing.
I know some scenarios where I can see using it. It's a last resort type thang ya see.
The thing is there are a number of scenarios that are considered torture and I disagree with that.
NOT feeding a prisoner properly springs to mind.
Posted by: ilw
As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?
Would you trust the numbers he gave you?
Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.
The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.
With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.
Rat, I created a hypothetical scenario.
You have chosen to nitpick the actual mechanisms of how might unfold.
We have a robot that is going to go over to the keypad and punch the numbers. You assure the prisoner that the torture will continue for the weeks and monthe to follow if the bomb goes off.
I would torture that person to save the lives of those in the building, would you?
Yes/No.
Actually he has simply pointed out what is woefully obvious, if someone doesn't want to give you info and yet you force them to talk, chances are they are going to lie. Its not rocket science.
In the scenario you gave it also strikes me as unlikely that you would know who the bomber is (i rather doubt you'd be waiting till a trial has been carried out) so basically you're not only suggesting torture, but also presumption of guilt. Chances are you'd have a list of suspects, most of whom are innocent of this particular crime. How many would you willingly torture to get an answer?
Busy, if it was your family then obviously theres nothing you wouldn't consider, but its like the death penalty argument (ie you would want to kill someone who had murdered a family member) we're talking about what the state will allow and will carry out and the argument is therefore about what fairly impassionate and uninvolved people should be doing.
Would you be ok with torturing americans on the mainland US?
Legitimising torture is basically the same as popularising it.
edit: 1/2 the quote was missing
Posted by: Rat Faced
As to the guy with the bomb Hobbes?
Would you trust the numbers he gave you?
Im bloody sure i wouldnt... if the bomb goes off, thats what he wanted anyway.
The torture stops either way.. the true numbers or the false.
With the false ones, he gets to take out a couple of the bastards that allowed torture as well as the innocents.
Rat, I created a hypothetical scenario.
You have chosen to nitpick the actual mechanisms of how might unfold.
We have a robot that is going to go over to the keypad and punch the numbers. You assure the prisoner that the torture will continue for the weeks and monthe to follow if the bomb goes off.
I would torture that person to save the lives of those in the building, would you?
Yes/No.
No.
Even if my kids were in there. In fact i'd be LESS likely to use torture if they were.
The only time torture can give reliable intelligence of any sort is when enough people are being "interrogated" that a pattern emerges. How many people have you interrogated before seeing a pattern?
How many were innocent, or at least neutral, until you turned them into enemies?
And the again the moral issue... the terrorist, in his mind, is acting for the best in the long run, even if you dont agree with him. He is justifying the end with the means.
What gives you the arrogance to think your right when using the same tecniques that you condemn in them?
In addition.. once you have a reputation for using those methods, it is very hard to get rid of that reputation and mistrust.
Just look at our countries now to see this as fact.
How many years sinse slavery was abolished? And yet the whole of the western world is still living with the distrust and sometimes hatred between races on that one issue.