The D’s are exactly the same (despite you once again changing the terms and questions I used) - preventing deaths by killing the one attempting to cause the deaths is allowed in any moral or legal setting - so why is depriving someone of sleep to accomplish the same goal somehow morally reprehensible? - and before you go off another crazy tangent - that is the extent of most of the enhanced interrogation techniques used - plain and simple sleep deprivation.
The point is - if I can kill someone to prevent them from killing others or myself - and this is morally acceptable - how can it be morally unacceptable to NOT kill them but only deprive them of a few night’s sleep to accomplish the same goal?!
[/quote]
It’s not the same thing at all. " How can it be morally unacceptable to NOT kill them but only deprive them of a few night’s sleep to accomplish the same goal?!"
Would killing the people you tortured accomplish the same goal? No, they would be dead and wouldn’t be able to tell you anything.
In self defense, you have a right to stop someone clear and present danger. You know who the perpetrator is, and you are going to do whatever it is you need to stop him to him. Your actions are on the person committing the act.
When you are torturing someone they are presumably in custody and not a clear and present danger to anyone. You are harming them to get information that they may or may not know about a plot that may or may not exist. Not self defense.
I think we should return to out previous policy of sending them to a 3rd party like Saudi Arabia to be tortured. That way we can claim the moral high road, and still get the necessary info outta-em. I know this sounds immoral, but the the world is a F^%$#d up place. I will do what I need to do to win/survive. If you wont, then will will not.
[quote]OldGuy67 wrote:
I think we should return to out previous policy of sending them to a 3rd party like Saudi Arabia to be tortured. That way we can claim the moral high road, and still get the necessary info outta-em. I know this sounds immoral, but the the world is a F^%$#d up place. I will do what I need to do to win/survive. If you wont, then will will not. [/quote]
No need to claim the moral high ground. Save morality for those not trying to kill you. What lengths should we go to to ensure that combatants are killed humanely when shooting back at you? Should belly shots be investigated by congress? Should soldiers not take a shot unless they are sure the enemy can be harvested humanely?
What about military strikes that kill civilians? How does this compare morally to tourturing an enemy combatant? Should we abandon any action that has the potential to kill civilians?
We have to assume, or ensure, that interogators are well trained and are motivated by aquiring useful information. We need to do what we can to ensure harsh treatment is used on those that are truly enemy combatants. If this is the case, I could give a shit what they do. Cut off fingers, but their balls in a vise, etc. If it is not being done just for the sake of tourture, I am fine with it.
If we are not allowed to gather information from captured combatants, they will not be captured. If they can provide no value, they will be killed rather than captured.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
OldGuy67 wrote:
I think we should return to out previous policy of sending them to a 3rd party like Saudi Arabia to be tortured. That way we can claim the moral high road, and still get the necessary info outta-em. I know this sounds immoral, but the the world is a F^%$#d up place. I will do what I need to do to win/survive. If you wont, then will will not.
No need to claim the moral high ground. Save morality for those not trying to kill you. What lengths should we go to to ensure that combatants are killed humanely when shooting back at you? Should belly shots be investigated by congress? Should soldiers not take a shot unless they are sure the enemy can be harvested humanely?
What about military strikes that kill civilians? How does this compare morally to tourturing an enemy combatant? Should we abandon any action that has the potential to kill civilians?
We have to assume, or ensure, that interogators are well trained and are motivated by aquiring useful information. We need to do what we can to ensure harsh treatment is used on those that are truly enemy combatants. If this is the case, I could give a shit what they do. Cut off fingers, but their balls in a vise, etc. If it is not being done just for the sake of tourture, I am fine with it.
If we are not allowed to gather information from captured combatants, they will not be captured. If they can provide no value, they will be killed rather than captured.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
OldGuy67 wrote:
I think we should return to out previous policy of sending them to a 3rd party like Saudi Arabia to be tortured. That way we can claim the moral high road, and still get the necessary info outta-em. I know this sounds immoral, but the the world is a F^%$#d up place. I will do what I need to do to win/survive. If you wont, then will will not.
No need to claim the moral high ground. Save morality for those not trying to kill you. What lengths should we go to to ensure that combatants are killed humanely when shooting back at you? Should belly shots be investigated by congress? Should soldiers not take a shot unless they are sure the enemy can be harvested humanely?
What about military strikes that kill civilians? How does this compare morally to tourturing an enemy combatant? Should we abandon any action that has the potential to kill civilians?
We have to assume, or ensure, that interogators are well trained and are motivated by aquiring useful information. We need to do what we can to ensure harsh treatment is used on those that are truly enemy combatants. If this is the case, I could give a shit what they do. Cut off fingers, but their balls in a vise, etc. If it is not being done just for the sake of tourture, I am fine with it.
If we are not allowed to gather information from captured combatants, they will not be captured. If they can provide no value, they will be killed rather than captured.
You’ve constructed a hell of a strawman there.[/quote]
Not sure I am following you. I outlined why I support harsh interogation and even “gasp” torture “gasp”.
Terrorism is the act of using violence/fear for political gains. When we torture terrorists, or anyone else for that matter, we become what we despise.
You’re making a boat of corpses to reach your destination, and soon you will find that ones intentions have nothing to do with how we solve problems. Even though we may prevent disasters through torture, we destroy the greatest part of ourselves, our compassion, by doing it. It seems you are, “struggling across the backs of murdered men.” Read watchmen for the references.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Terrorism is the act of using violence/fear for political gains. When we torture terrorists, or anyone else for that matter, we become what we despise. [/quote]
So we are terroizing terrorists? We despise those that terrorize terrorists?
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
You’re making a boat of corpses to reach your destination, and soon you will find that ones intentions have nothing to do with how we solve problems.
[/quote]
please provide detail.
our compassion for terrorist or those we could not save because we didn’t torture the terrorists?
Would you like to struggle accross the backs of interogated men or dead men you could have saved by interogation? I am not following.
[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
the greatest part of ourselves, our compassion
[/quote]
Unbelievable. You take compassion, I’ll take survival. What a pussy.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
We have to assume, or ensure, that interogators are well trained and are motivated by aquiring useful information. We need to do what we can to ensure harsh treatment is used on those that are truly enemy combatants. If this is the case, I could give a shit what they do. Cut off fingers, but their balls in a vise, etc. If it is not being done just for the sake of tourture, I am fine with it.
If we are not allowed to gather information from captured combatants, they will not be captured. If they can provide no value, they will be killed rather than captured.
[/quote]
You also assume torturing a person will get him to say the truth. A tortured person will say whatever his/her interrogator wants to hear. You’ll have no guarantee to get credible information, even less than what you’d get out of a normal interrogation. That is to say even if you have someone who actually knows something, which you’ll never know for sure. That’s why these guys a couple of hundred years back created this thing called the bill of rights to prevent this kind of shit.
The biggest problem, ofcourse, is that you’ll create hate. You’ll make the tortured hate you more than ever. If not now, than tomorrow. You’d be better of killing every tortured person so as not to let it bite you in the ass in a couple of years. But that’s pretty much how low a so called civilised country can go, effectively becoming savage. In the end you’re not solving anything be torture. You need to know what the US is trying to accomplish, it’s to stop terrorism, right? Then why do they create more of what is the prime breeding ground for terrorism: hate.
[quote]waht wrote:
You also assume torturing a person will get him to say the truth. A tortured person will say whatever his/her interrogator wants to hear. You’ll have no guarantee to get credible information, even less than what you’d get out of a normal interrogation. That is to say even if you have someone who actually knows something, which you’ll never know for sure. That’s why these guys a couple of hundred years back created this thing called the bill of rights to prevent this kind of shit.
[/quote]
We’ve already been through this. Try and keep up.
If they are enemy combatants they were already trying to kill us. I really don’t see the relavence of hatred above and beyond hatred deep enough to want to kill me. What’s more important, being hated or being alive?
So your problem is torturing savages, not killing civilians? We do both. I am curious how you justify one but not the other.
[quote]
In the end you’re not solving anything be torture. You need to know what the US is trying to accomplish, it’s to stop terrorism, right? Then why do they create more of what is the prime breeding ground for terrorism: hate.[/quote]
You want to stop the murder of civilians? If the goal is to stop terrorism, why not do what is necessary to uncover terrorist plots and stop them?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
We’ve already been through this. Try and keep up.[/quote]
My apologies, i havent read the whole thread. So whats the verdict? Torture does provide reliable information?
[quote]
If they are enemy combatants they were already trying to kill us. I really don’t see the relavence of hatred above and beyond hatred deep enough to want to kill me. What’s more important, being hated or being alive?[/quote]
Well if those are the only options, than we are in a world of sh*t. The thing is there are people being tortured who arent enemy combatants but people at the wrong place, wrong time. Sure you cant win the enemy combatants over easy, but by harming innocent people through torture is unacceptable. I hope we agree that we must not try and inflict as much damage on the enemy as possible, but we try to keep it to a minimum. To minimize collateral damage will make the job easier in the future, and we might slow down this vicious cirkel.
Ofcourse we should uncover terrorist plots and try to stop them, but theres hundreds ways to do that. Why go with the most destructive and unreliable there is?
And i didnt even mention the ethical implications of torture. By using torture the US is no better than dozens of regimes in the Middle East, Russia, China and many more for whom it is nothing new. ‘Spreading democracy’ in the ME by using torture is absurd.
[quote]waht wrote:
dhickey wrote:
We’ve already been through this. Try and keep up.
My apologies, i havent read the whole thread. So whats the verdict? Torture does provide reliable information?
[/quote]
There is no verdict. The premis to the arguement (mine anyway) is that it does work, or we wouldn’t be wasting our time. If this is not case, the whole argument changes. I am not aware of anyone on this board that advocated torture for the sake of torture.
I have not seen any evidense of this. Please share.
Agian, I was not aware that we were torturing innocent people, nor would I advocate such a thing. If you are commenting on some moral code, how about killing innocent people in battle? Casualty of War or Collateral Damage are terms I don’t care for much, but are a reality just the same. Always have been and always will be.
i haven’t seen anyone argue against this.
This would be a constructive discussion if you argue it logically. Just saying it doesn’t make it so. If you can provide some evidense that we are using ineffective tactics in lueue of other more effective tactics, please provide some evidense or at least a logical detailed assertion.
This is the specific part i have the most issue with. you are applying some arbitrary ethical code to one tactic, but not others. This is the part that is most intellectually lazy.
Apologies for my very late reply, totally forgot about it.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
There is no verdict. The premis to the arguement (mine anyway) is that it does work, or we wouldn’t be wasting our time. If this is not case, the whole argument changes. I am not aware of anyone on this board that advocated torture for the sake of torture.[/quote]
Where is the proof torture works? I know it sounds logical to assume it would not have been used if it clearly didn’t work, but how do we know it works? What are the criteria for it to work? How do we know the positives weigh more than the negatives?
[quote]
I have not seen any evidense of this. Please share.
Agian, I was not aware that we were torturing innocent people, nor would I advocate such a thing. [/quote]
Well, i think you do know. I could list some links to articles or other sources about prisoner abuse and/or torture at Abu Graib/other Iraqi prisons and at Guantanamo bay. Assuming the inmates are all guilty is not going to cut it. But there are enough stories about former Guantanamo inmates apparently being innocent and having been tortured. It’s not really all surprising considering the fact there is no justice system in the area’s these people are detained. A soldier is a soldier, not a police-officer and certainly not a judge
Besides that i don’t care if they are guilty. They shouldn’t be tortured. I wouldn’t want the police here to torture suspects or even guilty criminals. That’s how dictatorships do their business, not Western civilizations.
You wouldn’t mind if your family would be killed by either a bullet or bomb or whatever because it’s always been there? And if you do, you would be fine with letting everyone on this planet die except your own loved ones?
Killing innocent people in war is wrong, i again don’t care if it’s ‘normal’ or whatever. Murder is very normal too. Rape is even more normal. I still think they are wrong. Rape is always wrong while murder can be justified in certain circumstances (war being one).
Hate. America was attack because of foreign policies creating hate among certain people. And now America is doing the same thing; creating more hate. War with all it’s tragedies and torture create hate among those who are targeted. In this case it’s everyone living in the Middle East, praying in direction to Mecca. How the hell do you think this is going to play out? It can’t be won anymore unless every muslim in the middle east is dead or is enslaved under a tyrannical rule of the US. You don’t win people over to your side by not giving a shit about the ‘inferior people’ living there. It’s the same as it has always has been; little good is done (killing Saddam was very good and made me happy), and lot’s of bad is done (not only has the opinion on the US in the middle east fallen, everywhere in the world it has fallen). Of course you can say “fuck 'em”, and that’s fine, but you know it won’t make any problem go away.
Then again, i assume America wants to do what it says (or what Bush and now Obama is saying): spread democracy, protect America, stop tiranny and stop the terrorists…
I apply it to all tactics, but we’re talking abou torture here, right?
[quote]waht wrote:
Apologies for my very late reply, totally forgot about it.
Where is the proof torture works? I know it sounds logical to assume it would not have been used if it clearly didn’t work, but how do we know it works? What are the criteria for it to work? How do we know the positives weigh more than the negatives?
[/quote]
Again, I am assuming that we would only be doing it if it produced results. Are you contending that we are investing enormous amounts of time and energy into tactics that don’t work? Are we torturing just for the sake of torturing?
who is defending what happened here? Do not see the difference between what happened here and what we are discussing? If not, conversation over.
What does abuse by guards or others not responsible for interrogation relate to what we are talking about here. I don’t think you are following the conversation.
Really? Who?
Again, go ahead and start another thread about prisoner abuse by their captors. This is not what we are talking about here.
should they be killed? Should innocent bystanders be killed?
Yeah, that’s what we are talking about here. sheesh.
What does me minding it have to do with reality of war?
why don’t you re-read this this last part and tell us all what you point is.
Yep. you have no clue. should have read the whole thing before responding. I wouldn’t have even bothered.
[quote]
Then again, i assume America wants to do what it says (or what Bush and now Obama is saying): spread democracy, protect America, stop tiranny and stop the terrorists…
I apply it to all tactics, but we’re talking abou torture here, right?[/quote]
I’m just going to state my position here again: If we executed people for doing it to our guys? It’s torture. If we learned it from Mao’s Communists? It’s torture. If it’s identical to or harsher than techniques used by the Gestapo? You guessed it… It’s torture. If people who don’t think it’s torture suddenly recant after actually experiencing it? It’s torture.
There is room to argue that perhaps there are situations in which we should torture. You’re free to say that. But the bullshit argument that waterboarding isn’t torture has to stop. If you think Americans should torture to save the lives of their own just say so (protip: torture isn’t a good method of interrogation, either). Don’t hide behind technicalities.
[quote]valiance. wrote:
I’m just going to state my position here again: If we executed people for doing it to our guys? It’s torture. If we learned it from Mao’s Communists? It’s torture. If it’s identical to or harsher than techniques used by the Gestapo? You guessed it… It’s torture. If people who don’t think it’s torture suddenly recant after actually experiencing it? It’s torture.
There is room to argue that perhaps there are situations in which we should torture. You’re free to say that. But the bullshit argument that waterboarding isn’t torture has to stop. If you think Americans should torture to save the lives of their own just say so (protip: torture isn’t a good method of interrogation, either). Don’t hide behind technicalities.[/quote]
Both of them could take it for 5 seconds.
There is a guy out there to whom they did that 180 times in a month for a considerably longer time, without food for days and sleep deprivation.