NationStates Jolt Archive

Is torture inexcusable, no matter what the circumstance? Is it justifiable, but only in very dire situations? Does it depend on the type of torture in question, or whether it can be legally defined as torture?

Share your thoughts.

I, personally, am a staunch supporter of torture- but only if it's used on "people" who deserve it (murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.).

Is torture inexcusable, no matter what the circumstance? Is it justifiable, but only in very dire situations? Does it depend on the type of torture in question, or whether it can be legally defined as torture?

Share your thoughts.

I, personally, am a staunch supporter of torture- but only if it's used on "people" who deserve it (murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.).

It dehumanises both the suspect and the person doing it.

It dehumanises both the suspect and the person doing it.

What about people who deserve it? Yesterday on Oprah, they talked about a man who adopted a 5-year-old girl and made her his sex slave. He raped her, took pornographic pictures of her to show on the net, etc. Scum like that fully deserve to be tortured.

It dehumanises both the suspect and the person doing it.
Rapists, murderers and child molesters dehumanised themselves but still torture is just wrong..

It dehumanises both the suspect and the person doing it.
Rapists, murderers and child molesters dehumanised themselves but still torture is just wrong..

I, personally, am a staunch supporter of torture- but only if it's used on "people" who deserve it (murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.).
Likewise. Worked quite wellin Fascist Italy where crime was very low.

Course I wouldn't mind using lesser [Non-deadly and only somewhat painful] forms of torture for small crimes as well.

Never under any circumstances.

Torture is always wrong. Period.

What about people who deserve it?

Its not up to you to decide who does and does not 'deserve' to be tortured. No one has that right.
Just like no one has the right to take anyone elses life away, or just like no one has the right to rape another person, or to butcher them etc etc.

Rapists, murderers and child molesters dehumanised themselves but still torture is just wrong
Why would you torture them? What does it solve, but for some petty sense of vengance.

I prefer to live in a society based on justice not on revenge.

Torture is only acceptable in certain extreme circumstances. For example, let's assume a group of terrorists have smuggled a nuclear weapon into the country. The government doesn't know where they've set it up, but they've captured one of the terrorists. In order to prevent millions of deaths they might torture him to learn the bomb's whereabouts.

Torture is never justified, for any reason or scenario... but it's very easy to make it sound like less of a big deal than it actually is - pedophilia and terrorism are already in this thread, look! They really push society's buttons at the moment, so can be used to excuse torture. A few generations ago, it was religion that pushed our buttons, or witches, or nazis or jews...

[realistic appraising]Ensure torture is illegal and condemned in the strongest possible terms, nationally and internationally. That way, it'll make our respective governments use it only very sparingly, rather than more widespread. [/realistic appraising]

Elgesh']Torture is never justified, for any reason or scenario... but it's very easy to make it sound like less of a big deal than it actually is - pedophilia and terrorism are already in this thread, look! They really push society's buttons at the moment, so can be used to excuse torture. A few generations ago, it was religion that pushed our buttons, or witches, or nazis or jews...

[realistic appraising]Ensure torture is illegal and condemned in the strongest possible terms, nationally and internationally. That way, it'll make our respective governments use it only very sparingly, rather than more widespread. [/realistic appraising]
The only button I'm talking about pushing is a nuclear one. If it can save a tremendous number of lives then torturing a handfull of people is worth it.

Torture is only acceptable in certain extreme circumstances. For example, let's assume a group of terrorists have smuggled a nuclear weapon into the country. The government doesn't know where they've set it up, but they've captured one of the terrorists. In order to prevent millions of deaths they might torture him to learn the bomb's whereabouts.

It my be useful in that instance, and even necessary to save lives, but whoever is responsible for the torture has nevertheless commited a grievous wrong, and should be punished for it.

Those circumstances mitigate his crime, to an extent, but anyone who commits the atrocious crime of torture is culpable.

The only button I'm talking about pushing is a nuclear one. If it can save a tremendous number of lives then torturing a handfull of people is worth it.

Oh I ken - I was looking at the thread as a whole though, and 'terrorist atrocity' and 'pedophile punishment' had already come up as reasons to torture; eminently sellable 'instances-where-it's-OK-to-torture' to the public :)

As it happens, of course I agree with you, for that very precise instance.

But governments can't be allowed to agree with you, at least publically; agree to torture in that instance, and it's the thin end of the wedge. If you already say you torture for this instance, what about torture when you're only 90% sure there's a nuke in your country? What about 82%? 75%? How low will you go?! What if you think a nuclear attack's planned and _about_ to be launched isn't it OK then...? etc etc.

No, I think secrecy and hypocracy still have a place in government, and torture is one of the few arguments for it.

Is torture inexcusable, no matter what the circumstance? Is it justifiable, but only in very dire situations? Does it depend on the type of torture in question, or whether it can be legally defined as torture?

Share your thoughts.

I, personally, am a staunch supporter of torture- but only if it's used on "people" who deserve it (murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.).
It's excusable in serious situtations. For example, I have no objection to it if the suspect knows information that could be used to save many people. However, I wouldn't endorse it as a standard policy.

In the circumstances you describe, the torture is gratuitous, unnecessary and even barbaric.

Torture is only acceptable in certain extreme circumstances. For example, let's assume a group of terrorists have smuggled a nuclear weapon into the country. The government doesn't know where they've set it up, but they've captured one of the terrorists. In order to prevent millions of deaths they might torture him to learn the bomb's whereabouts.
And who decided who is deserving of tourture
What level of proof is required?

Also I was taking the OP as the standard

He was not looking at using torture as a tool to save lives

He was looking to use it as a form of punishment
That I dont agree with

The other MAYBE if it were REALLY defined who had the power to do such (and full disclosure to the public was made)

Yes, sometimes

It my be useful in that instance, and even necessary to save lives, but whoever is responsible for the torture has nevertheless commited a grievous wrong, and should be punished for it.

Those circumstances mitigate his crime, to an extent, but anyone who commits the atrocious crime of torture is culpable.
We see things differently. I think whoever was capable of slowly and deliberately inflicting agonizing pain and degradation on another person in order to save so many lives deserves a medal as recognition that he did a difficult and perhaps psychologically scarring job in service to his nation.

I have no objection to it if the suspect knows information that could be used to save many people

Ah.

How do you know the suspect is telling the truth?

Or how do you know the truth the suspect is telling, is not the flase-truth (ie he was purposely told false information in case he was tortured, and him believing it- told it as truth)

Torturing for information = pointless, because you either get a answer, or the answer the torturer wants to hear, and that's hardly ever the answer.

As punishment it might have some merits, but you might as well just lop their head off or turn back prisons a couple of decades and stuff them in there.

Elgesh']Torture is never justified, for any reason or scenario... but it's very easy to make it sound like less of a big deal than it actually is - pedophilia and terrorism are already in this thread, look! They really push society's buttons at the moment, so can be used to excuse torture. A few generations ago, it was religion that pushed our buttons, or witches, or nazis or jews...
Replace "torture" with "imprisonment" and you have an equally valid argument.

And who decided who is deserving of tourture
What level of proof is required?

Also I was taking the OP as the standard

He was not looking at using torture as a tool to save lives

He was looking to use it as a form of punishment
That I dont agree with

The other MAYBE if it were REALLY defined who had the power to do such (and full disclosure to the public was made)
1) Deserve's got nothing to do with it. The need to save many lives is my only justification for torture.

2) I was submitting my own scenario because I disagree with using torture as punishment even though sometimes the more primitive part of me likes the idea.

Replace "torture" with "imprisonment" and you have an equally valid argument.

Trite, friend, really trite :)

Ah.

How do you know the suspect is telling the truth?

Or how do you know the truth the suspect is telling, is not the flase-truth (ie he was purposely told false information in case he was tortured, and him believing it- told it as truth)
You don't know, but you must make him believe that if he's lied, and in my scenario you will know if he's lying because a city will vaporise, then he's just condemned himself to many, many months of torture. Make him believe that he will be screaming for death for a long time if he's caught in a lie and he's likely to tell the truth.

We see things differently. I think whoever was capable of slowly and deliberately inflicting agonizing pain and degradation on another person in order to save so many lives deserves a medal as recognition that he did a difficult and perhaps psychologically scarring job in service to his nation.

I'm not indisposed to giving a medal out after his jail-term is up.

Would make him a hero not only by virtue of saving lives, but of saving the rule of law.

Ah.

How do you know the suspect is telling the truth?

Or how do you know the truth the suspect is telling, is not the flase-truth (ie he was purposely told false information in case he was tortured, and him believing it- told it as truth)
That's the problem with torture. It's not like I'm giving it two thumbs up (see the original poster). I just think that the suffering of one person is worth less than the lives of many more. I'm not an expert. I don't know how to ensure that the truth is told.

1) Deserve's got nothing to do with it. The need to save many lives is my only justification for torture.

2) I was submitting my own scenario because I disagree with using torture as punishment even though sometimes the more primitive part of me likes the idea.
Sorry I used deserve ment to address your situation
I meant who decidedes who gets tortured
What burden of proof

What about people who deserve it? Yesterday on Oprah, they talked about a man who adopted a 5-year-old girl and made her his sex slave. He raped her, took pornographic pictures of her to show on the net, etc. Scum like that fully deserve to be tortured.

I wouldn't mind torturing Oprah. :p

I don't know how to ensure that the truth is told.

Well, then whats the point?

Sorry I used deserve ment to address your situation
I meant who decidedes who gets tortured
What burden of proof
I think you have to take it on a case by case basis. If, for example, you raid a cargo ship that you believe, due to tips from foreign intelligence agencies, has transported a nuke into the country, but find that it's too late. The nuke has already been offloaded. Still, on board the ship you find a person who's on a list of people connected to Al Qaeda, you might torture him to find out who picked the bomb up.

You don't know, but you must make him believe that if he's lied, and in my scenario you will know if he's lying because a city will vaporise, then he's just condemned himself to many, many months of torture. Make him believe that he will be screaming for death for a long time if he's caught in a lie and he's likely to tell the truth.
What if he doesn't care about himself and is totally devoted to the 'cause' (whatever it may be)?

Torturing him after the event only serves petty revenge.

We see things differently. I think whoever was capable of slowly and deliberately inflicting agonizing pain and degradation on another person in order to save so many lives deserves a medal as recognition that he did a difficult and perhaps psychologically scarring job in service to his nation.

Didn't Himmler give a pretty good speech on that subject at a meeting of S.S. leaders? Used the exact same reasoning, in fact. :p

What if he doesn't care about himself and is totally devoted to the 'cause' (whatever it may be)?

Torturing him after the event only serves petty revenge.
You don't neccessarily have to do it, only convince him that it will be done if he's lying.

Didn't Himmler give a pretty good speech on that subject at a meeting of S.S. leaders? Used the exact same reasoning, in fact. :p
Folks, we have a godwin. All serious debate on this thread is officially over.

[QUOTE=-Magdha-]Is torture inexcusable, no matter what the circumstance? Is it justifiable, but only in very dire situations? Does it depend on the type of torture in question, or whether it can be legally defined as torture?

Share your thoughts.

I, personally, would welcome torture to the UK with open hands if it meant rapists and peadophiles suffered a fraction as much as their victims:mp5:

You don't neccessarily have to do it, only convince him that it will be done if he's lying.

You willing to take the chance he'll call your bluff? ;)

Is torture inexcusable, no matter what the circumstance? Is it justifiable, but only in very dire situations? Does it depend on the type of torture in question, or whether it can be legally defined as torture?

Share your thoughts.

I, personally, am a staunch supporter of torture- but only if it's used on "people" who deserve it (murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.).

I have just being reading Fanon The Wrethched of the Earth and there is an interesting bit when he interiviews one of the French torture's. The Frenchman is delerious and an insomniac due to the constant screaming he hears. He wears earplugs at night, plays loud music and closes all the windows (in the middle of the Algerian summer) in an effort to keep the noise out. He complains that helpers are too 'ineficient' and he has to do it all by himself. While visting hospital he seems one of his ex-victims, who apon seeing his nemesis attempts to commit suicide latter that day. The Frenchman ends up asking Fanon what he can do to enable him to keep on torturing and remain psychologicall 'well'.

Just something to keep in mind...

Is torture inexcusable, no matter what the circumstance? Is it justifiable, but only in very dire situations? Does it depend on the type of torture in question, or whether it can be legally defined as torture?

Share your thoughts.

I, personally, am a staunch supporter of torture- but only if it's used on "people" who deserve it (murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.).

From a moral perspective:

Torture as a punishment? Never.
Torture as a form of interregation? Never. (Also it's too unreliable.)

But a question, if I may: Why single out rapists to torture? Why not just say "Criminals"? Is rape one of the worst crimes imaginable? After all, other acts of violence can have much worse consequences than a rape. And financial and economic crimes, although maybe not as damaging for the individual, may nevertheless have serious consequences for a lot of people. (Think Enron)
And what about, say, drunk drivers? After all, they endanger the life and safety of the general public.

So where should you draw the line for who "deserves" torture as a punishment?

I don't like torture. I believe it should be an absolute last resort.. In extreme conditions it may be necessary and I accept that, but I still believe it should be avoided where possible.

I suppose my question would have to be, would it still be considered torture if the one being "tortured" enjoyed it?

I suppose my question would have to be, would it still be considered torture if the one being "tortured" enjoyed it?
Linking the two threads now huh? I'm not exactly the most knowledgable person regarding Masochism, but if it was intensive and shockingly painful stuff, would that still be considered enjoyable?

Some people just got it coming.
Every sodding Al Qaeda member for starters.
You cant dehumanize them enough.

Some people just got it coming.
Every sodding Al Qaeda member for starters.
You cant dehumanize them enough.
Is every sodding Al Qaeda member really in need of torture?

Is every sodding Al Qaeda member really in need of torture?


Not when they're dead...

Not when they're dead...
.. Umm. Ok then. In that case, do they all deserve to die? I'm pretty sure not every single member of Al Qaeda is a terrorist.

Linking the two threads now huh? I'm not exactly the most knowledgable person regarding Masochism, but if it was intensive and shockingly painful stuff, would that still be considered enjoyable?
The more painful, the more enjoyable.

The more painful, the more enjoyable.
To the extent of near death/death itself?

If I could die being torn to shreds, that would be like heaven.

Ok then. I understand now. No more questions required lol.

In which case, I guess torture is fine in that sense.. I mean, s/he is consenting to it pretty much.

If I could die being torn to shreds, that would be like heaven.
You know thats not what this thread was about :rolleyes:

.. Umm. Ok then. In that case, do they all deserve to die? I'm pretty sure not every single member of Al Qaeda is a terrorist.

What's your point?

Torture for information:
How do you know who to torture? How do you know you have the right guy? How do you know they even know the answers to your questions? How do you know you will be given the right answer?

This 'ticking bomb' thing is a very very very idealistic situation which assumes you have the right person who knows your answers - in real life it is most likely you will not know exactly who you are looking for - so what do you do? Round up a dozen likely suspects and torture at least 11 innocent people to within an inch of their lives? If they all turn out to be innocent what do you do? "Oops sorry... no hard feeling eh?"

Look at how shoddy the intelligence is - last week a pakistani village was bombed killing a bunch of innocent people - including children due to faulty intelligence. If your intelligence is so bad you dont know a nuke is offloaded on your shores then how the hell will you know who unloaded it.

Torture for Punishment:
The people are being punished because they do not live to the standards of society, if we do something that lowers up to their level we lose moral authority to pass judgement on them. The people who indicate they would enjoy torturing these people are closer to those we want to punish than they are to those we want to protect.

What's your point?
What need is there to kill people who have not killed anyone? Or even perhaps harmed anyone in their life?

ever been tortured? depending on what you consider torture I've been tortured and I can't say it was an enjoyable experiance by any means. But I still support it becouse in times of need the one must always be sacrificed for the needs of me.

But I still support it becouse in times of need the one must always be sacrificed for the needs of me.

Then lie down on the ground and submit to your fears and enemies, because you have given up all you claim to stand for.

What need is there to kill people who have not killed anyone? Or even perhaps harmed anyone in their life?

Or just prayed for the succes of Atta and friends, eh?
Or just donated the money, eh?

Or just prayed for the succes of Atta and friends, eh?
Or just donated the money, eh?
Personally, I don't think anyone should be killed for praying. Imprisoned for donating money definatly, but again, not killed.

Or just prayed for the succes of Atta and friends, eh?


Thinking is now a justification for torture now eh? How enlightened...

Personally, I don't think anyone should be killed for praying. Imprisoned for donating money definatly, but again, not killed.

Dude.... you support by action, money, prayer, propganda, what have you not, any action against OUR Western civilians, and I'll be delighted to throw the switch of the Electric Chair myself.

Dude.... you support by action, money, prayer, propganda, what have you not, any action against OUR Western civilians, and I'll be delighted to throw the switch of the Electric Chair myself.
... Praying is hardly an action. Many, including myself, would say that it means virtually nothing and accomplished that too... Nothing.
*sigh* Not another masochist..

Dude.... you support by action, money, prayer, propganda, what have you not, any action against OUR Western civilians, and I'll be delighted to throw the switch of the Electric Chair myself.

Can we flip that around and use that logic for the abuses Westerners have done to others?

Can we flip that around and use that logic for the abuses Westerners have done to others?
No.
Totally clear?

Is torture inexcusable, no matter what the circumstance? Is it justifiable, but only in very dire situations? Does it depend on the type of torture in question, or whether it can be legally defined as torture?

Share your thoughts.

I, personally, am a staunch supporter of torture- but only if it's used on "people" who deserve it (murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.).
I voted no, but only for the "legal definition" of torture, which is really the only one that counts.

No.
Totally clear?
Then you're stupid and ignorant. Boring.

Then you're stupid and ignorant. Boring.


And I think you're not 100% Pro-West. Flipfloppy waffler.

No.
Totally clear?

In a nutshell, you have showed beyond all doubt why people loath Westerners for THAT kind of moronic logic and short sightedness.

And I think you're not 100% Pro-West. Flipfloppy waffler.
I'm from New Zealand.. So I'm probably like 50% West, and 50% South :). Flipfloppy waffler? Ouch lol. Painful.

And I think you're not 100% Pro-West. Flipfloppy waffler.

I'm not Pro-West.

I'm Pro-Debunking-this-bullshit-smokescreen-excuse-that-there-is-a-clash-of-Civilisations out there because it only serves those who wish to profit from it.

You have bought hook line and sinker into the zombie mentality. Do what you're told, when you're told and don't ask questions. Anyone that does ask questions is un-patriotic.

I bet McCarthy is a hero of yours?

In a nutshell, you have showed beyond all doubt why people loath Westerners for THAT kind of moronic logic and short sightedness.

The question WHY is irrelevant.
The only question is: how to make sure they cant do anything about it...

I'm not Pro-West.

I'm Pro-Debunking-this-bullshit-smokescreen-excuse-that-there-is-a-clash-of-Civilisations out there because it only serves those who wish to profit from it.

You have bought hook line and sinker into the zombie mentality. Do what you're told, when you're told and don't ask questions. Anyone that does ask questions is un-patriotic.

I bet McCarthy is a hero of yours?

Since the Right Honourable Gentleman failed to use the same logic to, say, the KKK... can't say I care much for him.

Questions are just fine. Provided they center on: How to exercise our war more effectively.
But questions that tend to undermine ferocity and ruthlesness?
Aid and comfort to the enemy...

The question WHY is irrelevant.
The only question is: how to make sure they cant do anything about it...

Have fun in your Ivory Tower.
I'll be outside evolving.

Have fun in your Ivory Tower.
I'll be outside evolving.
Could I perhaps join you there?

Could I perhaps join you there?

Evolving like dinosaurs?


"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen.
And I say let us give them all they want."
-- William Tecumseh Sherman

Could I perhaps join you there?
Of course- I always have room for Kiwis. :D

Of course- I always have room for Kiwis. :D
:p Excellent, that's what I like to hear.

Physical torture is abhorrent, regardless of the reasons.

Psychological torture.. well, some might argue that denying someone their personal freedom (ie chucking them in jail for 20 years) is psychological torture..

But since we currently have no other way of dealing with society's malcontents (Australia won't take them anymore), just let them rot in prison.

Torture for information is pointless, as has been pointed out already, and merely serves to satisfy some deep-seated insecurities on the part of the torturer.

Torture for information:
How do you know who to torture? How do you know you have the right guy? How do you know they even know the answers to your questions? How do you know you will be given the right answer?

This 'ticking bomb' thing is a very very very idealistic situation which assumes you have the right person who knows your answers - in real life it is most likely you will not know exactly who you are looking for - so what do you do? Round up a dozen likely suspects and torture at least 11 innocent people to within an inch of their lives? If they all turn out to be innocent what do you do? "Oops sorry... no hard feeling eh?"

Look at how shoddy the intelligence is - last week a pakistani village was bombed killing a bunch of innocent people - including children due to faulty intelligence. If your intelligence is so bad you dont know a nuke is offloaded on your shores then how the hell will you know who unloaded it.

Torture for Punishment:
The people are being punished because they do not live to the standards of society, if we do something that lowers up to their level we lose moral authority to pass judgement on them. The people who indicate they would enjoy torturing these people are closer to those we want to punish than they are to those we want to protect.
In my scenario I gave an example of the evidence I find acceptable for the "ticking bomb threat".

In Pakistan, while we didn't get Ayman al Zawahiri, we did get several al qaeda scumbags IIRC. The villagers were hosting them. Tough shit on them.

In my scenario I gave an example of the evidence I find acceptable for the "ticking bomb threat".

In Pakistan, while we didn't get Ayman al Zawahiri, we did get several al qaeda scumbags IIRC. The villagers were hosting them. Tough shit on them.
Your scenario was believing a freight ship had been used to bring in a nuke and someone believed to be from AQ being found on board? Would their identification as members of AQ be based on the same evidence/intelligence that puts babies on the "No Fly" lists? What if it is some shmuck with the same name? How do you know you have the right guy? Or the right ship?

Being suspected of being someone on a ship that might have been used to carry a nuke is far short of the level of evidence that a court would need to even consider prosecuting someone let along convicting them, yet you would be willing to jump right in with the thumb screws and pliers?

And in the end what do you do if you got the wrong guy?

Then you're stupid and ignorant. Boring.
Flame much?

Your scenario was believing a freight ship had been used to bring in a nuke and someone believed to be from AQ being found on board? Would their identification as members of AQ be based on the same evidence/intelligence that puts babies on the "No Fly" lists? What if it is some shmuck with the same name? How do you know you have the right guy? Or the right ship?

Being suspected of being someone on a ship that might have been used to carry a nuke is far short of the level of evidence that a court would need to even consider prosecuting someone let along convicting them, yet you would be willing to jump right in with the thumb screws and pliers?

And in the end what do you do if you got the wrong guy?
1) There's always the possibility you have the wrong guy. When millions of lives are in danger you have to take risks. Naturally you try to minimize the risk of catching an innocent individual. It's not just bad to torture him, but you'd be wasting time you can't afford to lose.

2) If you do have the wrong guy and you end up torturing him, you dispose of him to minimize bad publicity.

1) There's always the possibility you have the wrong guy. When millions of lives are in danger you have to take risks. Naturally you try to minimize the risk of catching an innocent individual. It's not just bad to torture him, but you'd be wasting time you can't afford to lose.

2) If you do have the wrong guy and you end up torturing him, you dispose of him to minimize bad publicity.

So to confirm - you would like to live in a country where the government will round up innocent people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time (people who might be loyal and patriotic citizens) an torture them on a hunch they know something then they murder the innocent person/people and hope nobody finds out? What do you do - kill all witnesses too?

In your scenario anyone on board could be a suspect - what do you do - torture all of them, get 30 different stories, find out they're all wrong then chuck the whole lot overboard?

I suppose you gotta protect the way of life you hold dear somehow...

Is torture inexcusable, no matter what the circumstance? Is it justifiable, but only in very dire situations? Does it depend on the type of torture in question, or whether it can be legally defined as torture?

Share your thoughts.

I, personally, am a staunch supporter of torture- but only if it's used on "people" who deserve it (murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.).

Torture should be used as a form of entertainment and nothing else. :p

So to confirm - you would like to live in a country where the government will round up innocent people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time (people who might be loyal and patriotic citizens) an torture them on a hunch they know something then they murder the innocent person/people and hope nobody finds out? What do you do - kill all witnesses too?

In your scenario anyone on board could be a suspect - what do you do - torture all of them, get 30 different stories, find out they're all wrong then chuck the whole lot overboard?

I suppose you gotta protect the way of life you hold dear somehow...
Only in case of extreme danger to large numbers of people. Only when a reasonable ammount of evidence implicates the person to be tortured.

In my scenario one person is selected because he is identified as being on a list of known terrorists.

The witnesses only know that he was arrested. The government can claim that he's being held in connection to terrorism. He simply vanishes into the system as far as anyone else is concerned. Sure that'll generate bad press, but not as bad as if it's confirmed that he was tortured.

It's a cold, hard world. Sometimes the ends do justify the means.

Is torture inexcusable, no matter what the circumstance? Is it justifiable, but only in very dire situations? Does it depend on the type of torture in question, or whether it can be legally defined as torture?

Share your thoughts.

I, personally, am a staunch supporter of torture- but only if it's used on "people" who deserve it (murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.).

Couldn't agree with you more on that view. I share the same. Torture has a place.

You know thats not what this thread was about :rolleyes:
And you know you need to loosen up a little. It helps reduce stress. You might even get to live longer and healthier. :)

And you know you need to loosen up a little. It helps reduce stress. You might even get to live longer and healthier. :)

I'm fit as a fiddle. :)

In Pakistan, while we didn't get Ayman al Zawahiri, we did get several al qaeda scumbags IIRC. The villagers were hosting them. Tough shit on them.

It possibly killed Al Qaida-operatives. Nothing is confirmed. But you feel that the lives of five innocent children is a price you gladly would pay regardless, it seems?

1) There's always the possibility you have the wrong guy. When millions of lives are in danger you have to take risks. Naturally you try to minimize the risk of catching an innocent individual. It's not just bad to torture him, but you'd be wasting time you can't afford to lose.

2) If you do have the wrong guy and you end up torturing him, you dispose of him to minimize bad publicity.

:eek:
Ahh... Farewell democracy, farewell Rule Of Law, we will miss you both so much. Goodbye freedoms, we hardly knew you.

"A democratic and free society: Destroyed by those who sought to protect it. - R.I.P."

It possibly killed Al Qaida-operatives. Nothing is confirmed. But you feel that the lives of five innocent children is a price you gladly would pay regardless, it seems?



:eek:
Ahh... Farewell democracy, farewell Rule Of Law, we will miss you both so much. Goodbye freedoms, we hardly knew you.

"A democratic and free society: Destroyed by those who sought to protect it. - R.I.P."
Yeah, you see, we're at war against Al Qaeda. That means that we try to kill their people wherever we find them. If a village knowingly hosts them, then they shouldn't be surprised when we attack. In every war some civilians end up dying. It's unavoidable. The price of not fighting Al Qaeda is that they might achieve their stated goal of killing 4 million Americans.

In a reference to possible future attacks by al Qaeda on U.S. targets, it said that "Americans should fasten their safety belts."

Abu Gheith has warned of the death of up to 4 million Americans, including 1 million children, through the use of chemical and biological weapons.

These statements and others from al Qaeda have been appearing from time to time on a Web site called www.alneda.com


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/06/24/binladen.video/

So yeah, I'd trade the lives of five kids and a bunch of terrorists for the lives of some 4 million civilians.

With Respect to your second point about democracy and rule of law, there have always been exceptions made in times of emergency. Martial law may be declared in some cases. Martial law violates many of our civil rights, but that sacrifice is made temporarily for the continued existence of the nation. This situation is not much different.

Yeah, you see, we're at war against Al Qaeda. That means that we try to kill their people wherever we find them. If a village knowingly hosts them, then they shouldn't be surprised when we attack. In every war some civilians end up dying. It's unavoidable. The price of not fighting Al Qaeda is that they might achieve their stated goal of killing 4 million Americans.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/06/24/binladen.video/

So yeah, I'd trade the lives of five kids and a bunch of terrorists for the lives of some 4 million civilians.

But you don't get that trade, you see. What you've got here is trading the lives of five children for nothing, maybe some Al Qaeda operatives and a strengthening of muslim extremism in Pakistan. But takng the lives of those children did not prevent any attack. And you assign collective blame to the entire village for something that maybe one or two people have done. But all this is a different debate...


With Respect to your second point about democracy and rule of law, there have always been exceptions made in times of emergency. Martial law may be declared in some cases. Martial law violates many of our civil rights, but that sacrifice is made temporarily for the continued existence of the nation. This situation is not much different.

I believe it is quite different. I don't believe at Al Qaeda has the power to carry out large scale attacks on the US today, and I don't believe that they can bring down neither western civilization nor the nation. Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be vigilant or even proactive when dealing with these guys, but it means that we shouldn't fly completely of the handle and succumb to fear and paranoia.

The reason I don't like the term "war on terror" as the president uses it, is because he describes a situation that is not temporary - like when you normally would impose martial law.

Anyway, the situation I understand you would accept, that the government could torture, and then kill that person when it was discovered that he was the wrong guy, is in my opinion completely unacceptable - even during a time of emergency.

Some people like to quote Franklin's "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", but I would rather direct you towards Eisenhower: The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.

But you don't get that trade, you see. What you've got here is trading the lives of five children for nothing, maybe some Al Qaeda operatives and a strengthening of muslim extremism in Pakistan. But takng the lives of those children did not prevent any attack. And you assign collective blame to the entire village for something that maybe one or two people have done. But all this is a different debate...



I believe it is quite different. I don't believe at Al Qaeda has the power to carry out large scale attacks on the US today, and I don't believe that they can bring down neither western civilization nor the nation. Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be vigilant or even proactive when dealing with these guys, but it means that we shouldn't fly completely of the handle and succumb to fear and paranoia.

The reason I don't like the term "war on terror" as the president uses it, is because he describes a situation that is not temporary - like when you normally would impose martial law.

Anyway, the situation I understand you would accept, that the government could torture, and then kill that person when it was discovered that he was the wrong guy, is in my opinion completely unacceptable - even during a time of emergency.

Some people like to quote Franklin's "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety", but I would rather direct you towards Eisenhower:
1) Killing Al Qaeda operatives delays and disrupts terrorist attacks. It buys us time to work on taking down their network and eliminating them as a threat.

2) It doesn't take much to pull off a large scale attack. Blow up a train full of toxic chemicals upwind of a town or city, sneak in a nuclear weapon (proliferation is kind of getting out of hand nowadays. It's just a matter of time until a non-state actor gets one.), get a hold of some smallpox and just infect a couple of suicide terrorists with US bound plane tickets. Any of those three would cause large casualties.

3) Please note that I said we are at war against Al Qaeda.

4) Fair enough. My opinion is different from yours.

5) I think maybe we also disagree on "How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without". In wartime sometimes things are done that in peace time are considered inhuman. The trick is to make sure that you don't abuse that emergency power, like when we put the Japanese-Americans in internment camps, and that we can return to normal after the threat is gone.

Evolving like dinosaurs?


"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen.
And I say let us give them all they want."
-- William Tecumseh Sherman

Ok, you are all against Muslims. But you failed to understand why most other nations, ethic groups, and even religions are against America (and some european nations at that). Lets put history into perspective, shall we?

Europeans enslaved:
Native Americans
Blacks
And even in some cases, Asians.

Lets now look at recent history:
America has attacked 2 nations in the past 4 years just because Bush wanted to.
No evidence has been found that Saddam had WMD's.
"White Phosphorus" was used against Civilian targets in Iraq in recent months, killing hundreds of innocents.


Now, then there are ignorant people (such as yourself) put on a "Holier Than Thou" attitude thinking that they are supperior to everyone else in the world. That is called Racism. No religion is supperior to any other in the world. I don't give a damn what people say, Christianity is in no way supperior to (lets say) Catholisism, Muslim, Hindu, or any other religion in the world. It is a biggoted comment to say that one religion is supperior to the others. Not that i am calling anyone a name, but it is wrong to say that one religion is supperior to another.

You state that just because they are Muslim means that they support terrorism, but you are sadly mistaken. There is a difference between a standard, run of the day Muslim and those Muslim Extremists that have declared a Jihad against all of Western Culture. If people like you don't fail to see the difference between the two, then racism and religious intolerance have won and equality has failed.

So yeah, I'd trade the lives of five kids and a bunch of terrorists for the lives of some 4 million civilians.

With Respect to your second point about democracy and rule of law, there have always been exceptions made in times of emergency. Martial law may be declared in some cases. Martial law violates many of our civil rights, but that sacrifice is made temporarily for the continued existence of the nation. This situation is not much different.
I agree with you on a lot of things, but on this, I gotta say -- if worse came to worst, and it was down to you and me to save civilization from the bad guys, I would shoot you in the head and fight on without you.

Why? Because I would want to be George Washington, but you are clearly Robespierre. I want to end the oppressive influence of terrorism. You want to hurt people that you are afraid of. I want liberty. You want revenge. I know when I've got my freedom, but there's no satisfying a lust for revenge. My enemies are those who are taking action against me. Your enemies are those who you think might want to do that. There is a big difference. Robespierre killed first his known enemies, then anyone who might be an enemy, and then he turned on his friends and his own people. He accused his enemies of terrorizing the world, yet he became the bloodiest terrorist of that period. The same goes for you. You can't be trusted.

I already have today's enemy in front of me. I don't need tomorrow's enemy -- you -- at my back. Plus, al-qaida is wherever it is. You're right here in my country. You, with your willingness to do bodily harm on a maybe-hunch, your willingness to sacrifice others' rights, your willingness to sacrifice others' children, are the greater, more immediate threat. Al-qaida doesn't have to attack us, when they've got you to do it for them.

Ok, you are all against Muslims. But you failed to understand why most other nations, ethic groups, and even religions are against America (and some european nations at that). Lets put history into perspective, shall we?

Europeans enslaved:
Native Americans
Blacks
And even in some cases, Asians.

Lets now look at recent history:
America has attacked 2 nations in the past 4 years just because Bush wanted to.
No evidence has been found that Saddam had WMD's.
"White Phosphorus" was used against Civilian targets in Iraq in recent months, killing hundreds of innocents.


Now, then there are ignorant people (such as yourself) put on a "Holier Than Thou" attitude thinking that they are supperior to everyone else in the world. That is called Racism. No religion is supperior to any other in the world. I don't give a damn what people say, Christianity is in no way supperior to (lets say) Catholisism, Muslim, Hindu, or any other religion in the world. It is a biggoted comment to say that one religion is supperior to the others. Not that i am calling anyone a name, but it is wrong to say that one religion is supperior to another.

You state that just because they are Muslim means that they support terrorism, but you are sadly mistaken. There is a difference between a standard, run of the day Muslim and those Muslim Extremists that have declared a Jihad against all of Western Culture. If people like you don't fail to see the difference between the two, then racism and religious intolerance have won and equality has failed.
America attacked Iraq because Bush wanted to. Afghanistan was attacked because their "foreign legion" of Al Qaeda fighters crashed planes into US civilian targets with no provocation.

White phosphorus was not used on civilian targets. Fallujah's citizens were warned ahead of time to leave because the marines were coming in to kill the insurgents there. Anyone who remained was a legitimate target.

Many cultures took slaves. Slavery still goes on in Sudan, and in Saudi Arabia it was only outlawed late in the twentieth century.

I agree with you on a lot of things, but on this, I gotta say -- if worse came to worst, and it was down to you and me to save civilization from the bad guys, I would shoot you in the head and fight on without you.

Why? Because I would want to be George Washington, but you are clearly Robespierre. I want to end the oppressive influence of terrorism. You want to hurt people that you are afraid of. I want liberty. You want revenge. I know when I've got my freedom, but there's no satisfying a lust for revenge. My enemies are those who are taking action against me. Your enemies are those who you think might want to do that. There is a big difference. Robespierre killed first his known enemies, then anyone who might be an enemy, and then he turned on his friends and his own people. He accused his enemies of terrorizing the world, yet he became the bloodiest terrorist of that period. The same goes for you. You can't be trusted.

I already have today's enemy in front of me. I don't need tomorrow's enemy -- you -- at my back. Plus, al-qaida is wherever it is. You're right here in my country. You, with your willingness to do bodily harm on a maybe-hunch, your willingness to sacrifice others' rights, your willingness to sacrifice others' children, are the greater, more immediate threat. Al-qaida doesn't have to attack as, when they've got you to do it for them.
1) I'm not afraid of the terrorists. If I was I'd move away from New Jersey, which is located between many prime terrorist targets, and go to Montana or something.

2) I do want to end the oppressive influence of terrorism. I don't want to keep hearing about women being stoned to death for having sex, gays being executed, free speech muzzled by violence, et cetera.

3) I want liberty and revenge. I want to exterminate al quaeda and then I want to make sure that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are restored and expanded. I also want to make an effort to spread those freedoms to oppressed people.

America attacked Iraq because Bush wanted to. Afghanistan was attacked because their "foreign legion" of Al Qaeda fighters crashed planes into US civilian targets with no provocation.

White phosphorus was not used on civilian targets. Fallujah's citizens were warned ahead of time to leave because the marines were coming in to kill the insurgents there. Anyone who remained was a legitimate target.

Many cultures took slaves. Slavery still goes on in Sudan, and in Saudi Arabia it was only outlawed late in the twentieth century.
This presumed pragmatism is undermined by your earlier post in which you admit that if you tortured the wrong person you would commit murder to cover it up. You know that the methods you are advocating are wrong, that the circumstances under which you would justify them are false, and that you would deserve to be punished by the law for doing them. Note I said "deserve to be punished." It's not just that you would be punished -- you'd deserve it and you know it, or else you wouldn't be trying to cover your ass with lame-o "they were warned" excuses, and you wouldn't be advocating murder to cover your tracks. You also know perfectly well that torture will not produce results, as evidenced by your acceptance of the idea that innocent people will be tortured for nothing and that even the guilty ones may not give the right answers.

You're advocating actions you don't actually believe in. If you were to follow through on this, you'd end up a suicidal alcoholic -- entirely appropriately.

Is torture inexcusable, no matter what the circumstance? Is it justifiable, but only in very dire situations? Does it depend on the type of torture in question, or whether it can be legally defined as torture?

Share your thoughts.

I, personally, am a staunch supporter of torture- but only if it's used on "people" who deserve it (murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc.).

Is torture justified? Sure it is. Picture this. You live out in the country when Air Force One crashlands nearby your house. Out of the wreckage comes one shambling survivor, none other than George W. Bush, sans secret service agents, looking a little bedraggled but otherwise none the worse for wear. He comes to your house, while you are out in the garage installing a new battery in your car. He asks to use your phone, and you direct him to the phone, which is conveniently located on the wall next to an old metal set of box springs leaning against the wall. You probably have 15 - 30 minutes before the rescue rangers arrive to scoop up Mr. President. So. Do you.....

A) Do nothing, or
B) Quickly attach a set of jumper cables to the battery and electrify the old metal set of box springs, and indulge yourself in a little fun and mayhem in the afternoon?

See? I knew you'd make the right decision!

Don't know what this has to do with whether it's justified or not, but I was watching Modern Marvels on The History Channel last night, and it was called "Torture Devices."

They said that since the year 2000, 75% of the worlds governments have been seriously involved in torture in one form or another. Whether it's right or wrong, it's certainly prevalant.

My opinion, it is justified under the right circumstances. What those circumstances can be is highly debatable. I know that I would never rule it out if my families safety was at stake.

1) I'm not afraid of the terrorists. If I was I'd move away from New Jersey, which is located between many prime terrorist targets, and go to Montana or something.

2) I do want to end the oppressive influence of terrorism. I don't want to keep hearing about women being stoned to death for having sex, gays being executed, free speech muzzled by violence, et cetera.

3) I want liberty and revenge. I want to exterminate al quaeda and then I want to make sure that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are restored and expanded. I also want to make an effort to spread those freedoms to oppressed people.
1. You can believe that if you like.

2. You want to end one oppression by replacing it with another. I reject you as much as I reject bin Laden and for the exact same reasons. Also, your statement indicates that you hate Islam, not terrorism. I'm on record with my opinion that this is a short-sighted, self-defeating view of the issue. For instance, once al-qaida is out of the way, how long do I have to live under threat of accidental torture in order to rid my society of you?

3. Do you think I will trust you to restore my freedoms after you have destroyed them? And do you think I'll stand by and let you force your opinions on others, remaking their countries in your twisted image, doing them the great favor of being purged of oppression Drunk Commies style? Forget it, pal. It's the bullet for you, if for no other reason than you've got a lot of damned nerve presuming to be the one to restore freedom to me.

but kinky torture is fun for everyone!




why does every thread turn into a Bushitized flame war?

he will be gone in 2 years and hopefully the damage wont be irreversible.

like that one guy in monty python said... "always look on the bright side of life. *whistle*"

1) I'm not afraid of the terrorists. If I was I'd move away from New Jersey, which is located between many prime terrorist targets, and go to Montana or something.

2) I do want to end the oppressive influence of terrorism. I don't want to keep hearing about women being stoned to death for having sex, gays being executed, free speech muzzled by violence, et cetera.

3) I want liberty and revenge. I want to exterminate al quaeda and then I want to make sure that the freedoms we enjoy in the US are restored and expanded. I also want to make an effort to spread those freedoms to oppressed people.

I'm almost curious to know if someone has hijacked DCD's account, since usually we agree to such an extent.

The problem with your reasonining is that, while spreading freedom and preventing injustice is a worthy goal, you also have to have the proper means to attain it. As Edward R. Murrow put it, you can't spread freedom abroad by laying it aside at home, and what you are proposing is precisely that: giving the government unlimited power in the event of an unspecified "emergency" to do whatever the hell they want to their citizens on the pretext of saving their citizenry. Not only does this not protect American citizens, since as Muravyets has pointed out, practically such a ticking time bomb scenario simply does not work, but also because there is no greater threat to this nation than laying aside the ideals that make us a nation. Not in ten thousand years could Al Queda ever conquer us by force or destroy our citizenry, but we could destroy America if we forget what it is that makes us America.

It helps to remember that we've faced a lot worse than Al Queda, and we've survived with our Constitution intact: Al Queda can't possibly match the threat to this nation that the Confederacy, the Great Depression, the Nazis, or the Soviet Union posed, and yet we never lost faith in our liberties then; in point of fact, I would argue that we won because we didn't lose faith in our liberties. It isn't any different this time.

I'm almost curious to know if someone has hijacked DCD's account, since usually we agree to such an extent.

The problem with your reasonining is that, while spreading freedom and preventing injustice is a worthy goal, you also have to have the proper means to attain it. As Edward R. Murrow put it, you can't spread freedom abroad by laying it aside at home, and what you are proposing is precisely that: giving the government unlimited power in the event of an unspecified "emergency" to do whatever the hell they want to their citizens on the pretext of saving their citizenry. Not only does this not protect American citizens, since as Muravyets has pointed out, practically such a ticking time bomb scenario simply does not work, but also because there is no greater threat to this nation than laying aside the ideals that make us a nation. Not in ten thousand years could Al Queda ever conquer us by force or destroy our citizenry, but we could destroy America if we forget what it is that makes us America.

It helps to remember that we've faced a lot worse than Al Queda, and we've survived with our Constitution intact: Al Queda can't possibly match the threat to this nation that the Confederacy, the Great Depression, the Nazis, or the Soviet Union posed, and yet we never lost faith in our liberties then; in point of fact, I would argue that we won because we didn't lose faith in our liberties. It isn't any different this time.
Well said, Ironically Named Person. :)

This presumed pragmatism is undermined by your earlier post in which you admit that if you tortured the wrong person you would commit murder to cover it up. So how is covering up such an act not pragmatic? Exposing it would only do harm to the nation. You know that the methods you are advocating are wrong, that the circumstances under which you would justify them are false, and that you would deserve to be punished by the law for doing them. Note I said "deserve to be punished." It's not just that you would be punished -- you'd deserve it and you know it, or else you wouldn't be trying to cover your ass with lame-o "they were warned" excuses, and you wouldn't be advocating murder to cover your tracks. Right and wrong isn't Black and White. Doing something that's "wrong" in order to achieve a greater good falls under shades of grey. I can live with torturing someone to save millions of lives. I can live with the fact that we might torture the wrong person. I can live with both under the condition that the benefit vastly outweighs the harm and that it doesn't become common practice. Ever see the Yin/Yang symbol? Ever wonder why each side bears a spot colored like the other? It's because nothing is all good or all bad. Nothing is really absolute. You also know perfectly well that torture will not produce results, as evidenced by your acceptance of the idea that innocent people will be tortured for nothing and that even the guilty ones may not give the right answers. I accepted that such things MAY happen. I do, however, believe that torture under the right circumstances (see my first few posts in this thread) will produce the information needed.

You're advocating actions you don't actually believe in. If you were to follow through on this, you'd end up a suicidal alcoholic -- entirely appropriately.
I'm advocating using extreme measures to defend against an extreme and imminent threat. I certainly do believe in that.

Is torture justified? Sure it is. Picture this. You live out in the country when Air Force One crashlands nearby your house. Out of the wreckage comes one shambling survivor, none other than George W. Bush, sans secret service agents, looking a little bedraggled but otherwise none the worse for wear. He comes to your house, while you are out in the garage installing a new battery in your car. He asks to use your phone, and you direct him to the phone, which is conveniently located on the wall next to an old metal set of box springs leaning against the wall. You probably have 15 - 30 minutes before the rescue rangers arrive to scoop up Mr. President. So. Do you.....

A) Do nothing, or
B) Quickly attach a set of jumper cables to the battery and electrify the old metal set of box springs, and indulge yourself in a little fun and mayhem in the afternoon?

See? I knew you'd make the right decision!
Damn. I may have to adjust my position. :D

1. You can believe that if you like.

2. You want to end one oppression by replacing it with another. I reject you as much as I reject bin Laden and for the exact same reasons. Also, your statement indicates that you hate Islam, not terrorism. I'm on record with my opinion that this is a short-sighted, self-defeating view of the issue. For instance, once al-qaida is out of the way, how long do I have to live under threat of accidental torture in order to rid my society of you?

3. Do you think I will trust you to restore my freedoms after you have destroyed them? And do you think I'll stand by and let you force your opinions on others, remaking their countries in your twisted image, doing them the great favor of being purged of oppression Drunk Commies style? Forget it, pal. It's the bullet for you, if for no other reason than you've got a lot of damned nerve presuming to be the one to restore freedom to me.

No, I don't hate Islam any more than I hate all religion. Plenty of good pious Muslims get by day to day without stonings and such. I would say that if you associate the deplorable actions of the radical islamists like Al Qaeda and their taliban friends with all muslims that perhaps it's you who has a problem.

Also, pleas stop acting like I advocate torture for just about any reason. I made it clear that I only believe it should be used under very narrowly defined circumstances to save the lives of millions of people from nuclear or strategic biological weapons.

The rest is your opinion. You're welcome to think what you want.

So how is covering up such an act not pragmatic? Exposing it would only do harm to the nation. Right and wrong isn't Black and White. Doing something that's "wrong" in order to achieve a greater good falls under shades of grey. I can live with torturing someone to save millions of lives. I can live with the fact that we might torture the wrong person. I can live with both under the condition that the benefit vastly outweighs the harm and that it doesn't become common practice. Ever see the Yin/Yang symbol? Ever wonder why each side bears a spot colored like the other? It's because nothing is all good or all bad. Nothing is really absolute. I accepted that such things MAY happen. I do, however, believe that torture under the right circumstances (see my first few posts in this thread) will produce the information needed.


I'm advocating using extreme measures to defend against an extreme and imminent threat. I certainly do believe in that.
China didn't cover up their massacre of the citizens of Beijing over the Tianenman Square demonstrations. That's because they believed they were right, regardless of what the rest of the world said. Secrecy is the tool of liars, cowards, and criminals. If you're right to do this, you shouldn't have to hide it. The fact that you would plan to hide it shows that you know you're wrong.

Everything you say here supports my previous argument against yours. You can't be trusted. Following your own reasoning, you could not turn out to be anything but a murderer, liar, and potential turncoat. I would not want you on my team and I wouldn't want you running around loose where you could get in my way. Bang. No cover up. I'll just leave a print-out of this thread on your corpse.

They said that since the year 2000, 75% of the worlds governments have been seriously involved in torture in one form or another. Whether it's right or wrong, it's certainly prevalant.


Well taking a gander through Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia..... 75% is rather a low estimate in my opinion.

Don't see how that justifies it though?

I'm almost curious to know if someone has hijacked DCD's account, since usually we agree to such an extent.

The problem with your reasonining is that, while spreading freedom and preventing injustice is a worthy goal, you also have to have the proper means to attain it. As Edward R. Murrow put it, you can't spread freedom abroad by laying it aside at home, and what you are proposing is precisely that: giving the government unlimited power in the event of an unspecified "emergency" to do whatever the hell they want to their citizens on the pretext of saving their citizenry. Not only does this not protect American citizens, since as Muravyets has pointed out, practically such a ticking time bomb scenario simply does not work, but also because there is no greater threat to this nation than laying aside the ideals that make us a nation. Not in ten thousand years could Al Queda ever conquer us by force or destroy our citizenry, but we could destroy America if we forget what it is that makes us America.

It helps to remember that we've faced a lot worse than Al Queda, and we've survived with our Constitution intact: Al Queda can't possibly match the threat to this nation that the Confederacy, the Great Depression, the Nazis, or the Soviet Union posed, and yet we never lost faith in our liberties then; in point of fact, I would argue that we won because we didn't lose faith in our liberties. It isn't any different this time.
It's not an unspecified threat in my scenario. I stated that torture is only acceptable if milliions of lives are in immediate danger from a nuclear or strategic biological weapon. How is that an unspecified danger? I'd say it's pretty specific.

We've survived with our constitution intact because the constitution was restored after the threats passed. Look at the historical record. In WWII Japanese-Americans were placed in internment camps. In the cold war we had blacklists and FBI surveilance of communist sympathizers. Things we see as "wrong" were done during the emergency, and the constitutional protections were restored afterward.

No, I don't hate Islam any more than I hate all religion. Plenty of good pious Muslims get by day to day without stonings and such. I would say that if you associate the deplorable actions of the radical islamists like Al Qaeda and their taliban friends with all muslims that perhaps it's you who has a problem.

Also, pleas stop acting like I advocate torture for just about any reason. I made it clear that I only believe it should be used under very narrowly defined circumstances to save the lives of millions of people from nuclear or strategic biological weapons.

The rest is your opinion. You're welcome to think what you want.
Of course, it's not your job to persuade me about who you hate or don't hate, but this is the impression your remarks make.

As for these "narrowly defined circumstances" of yours -- so in fact, you oppose torture, then? Because your scenario is a fantasy straight out of "24" or "The West Wing" and will never, ever happen.

The governments that use torture don't wait for such extreme circumstances -- including the US government -- so pardon me if I'm more interested in scenarios that might actually happen and probably are happening right now.

China didn't cover up their massacre of the citizens of Beijing over the Tianenman Square demonstrations. That's because they believed they were right, regardless of what the rest of the world said. Secrecy is the tool of liars, cowards, and criminals. If you're right to do this, you shouldn't have to hide it. The fact that you would plan to hide it shows that you know you're wrong.

Everything you say here supports my previous argument against yours. You can't be trusted. Following your own reasoning, you could not turn out to be anything but a murderer, liar, and potential turncoat. I would not want you on my team and I wouldn't want you running around loose where you could get in my way. Bang. No cover up. I'll just leave a print-out of this thread on your corpse.
1) No. You're wrong. I would cover it up to prevent negative consequences for those actions, not because I don't think that they are wrong. For example, most people would agree that smoking marijuana is not wrong. Still one doesn't do it in the open because of the negative consequences.

2) Fine. That's your opinion. What do you want me to say about it?

Of course, it's not your job to persuade me about who you hate or don't hate, but this is the impression your remarks make.

As for these "narrowly defined circumstances" of yours -- so in fact, you oppose torture, then? Because your scenario is a fantasy straight out of "24" or "The West Wing" and will never, ever happen.

The governments that use torture don't wait for such extreme circumstances -- including the US government -- so pardon me if I'm more interested in scenarios that might actually happen and probably are happening right now.
Unless the threat is immediate and will kill millions of people, no, I don't support torture. I only support it under those very extreme conditions.

I've been saying this the whole fucking time and everybody's been acting like I'd torture someone just to find out his credit card number or something.

It's not an unspecified threat in my scenario. I stated that torture is only acceptable if milliions of lives are in immediate danger from a nuclear or strategic biological weapon. How is that an unspecified danger? I'd say it's pretty specific.

We've survived with our constitution intact because the constitution was restored after the threats passed. Look at the historical record. In WWII Japanese-Americans were placed in internment camps. In the cold war we had blacklists and FBI surveilance of communist sympathizers. Things we see as "wrong" were done during the emergency, and the constitutional protections were restored afterward.

When exactly will this threat pass, DCD? How do we stop terrorism when terrorism is a(n often successful) tactic and not a cause? Even if we killed every member of Al Queda tomorrow, we still wouldn't be free of the threat that you are suggesting. If so, then what you are really proposing is an open-ended liscense to kill by the federal government on the pretext of protecting its citizens. Not only is this liscense more dangerous to the continued existence of the republic than what you are proposing to deal with, but it runs squarely counter to the primary objective of the government in the first place: to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. If you permanently overturn that, then it won't matter if you protect the citizens, because there will be no America left for them to live in.

1) No. You're wrong. I would cover it up to prevent negative consequences for those actions, not because I don't think that they are wrong. For example, most people would agree that smoking marijuana is not wrong. Still one doesn't do it in the open because of the negative consequences.

2) Fine. That's your opinion. What do you want me to say about it?
Smoking pot is illegal. If you are ethical, then you either don't smoke pot or you openly defy the law as a challenge to it. What you're advocating is sneaking around and wrapping yourself up in lies and secrets so you can get your way and still avoid the consequences. Not an attitude I want in charge of things that matter to me -- like my life.

Unless the threat is immediate and will kill millions of people, no, I don't support torture. I only support it under those very extreme conditions.

I've been saying this the whole fucking time and everybody's been acting like I'd torture someone just to find out his credit card number or something.
You'd be lucky to get a credit card number.

But as I said, considering the fantastical nature of your scenario, we can conclude that DCD does not condone torture but just likes to argue facetiously.

So all of us who were wondering what got into you can relax now.

If utilised both responsibly and correctly, upon those whose guilt is both incontravertible and of a henious crime, to illicit information to the benefit of many, I would enact torture without remorse.

When exactly will this threat pass, DCD? How do we stop terrorism when terrorism is a(n often successful) tactic and not a cause? Even if we killed every member of Al Queda tomorrow, we still wouldn't be free of the threat that you are suggesting. If so, then what you are really proposing is an open-ended liscense to kill by the federal government on the pretext of protecting its citizens. Not only is this liscense more dangerous to the continued existence of the republic than what you are proposing to deal with, but it runs squarely counter to the primary objective of the government in the first place: to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. If you permanently overturn that, then it won't matter if you protect the citizens, because there will be no America left for them to live in.
Are you still talking about my justification for torture here or have you moved on to a different subject? I'm asking because my criteria for justifying torture has never arisen. There's no point in asking when such a threat will pass if it hasn't even arisen yet.

Firstly there are ways of knowing if someone is lying, most experienced psycologists can do it, and I know a number of ways of finding out if given time. However I see tourture being used within the context of a short sharp shock, to condition an individual not to act in the way he did. This to me seems in someways better than imprisonment, and will be more effective psycologically.

Are you still talking about my justification for torture here or have you moved on to a different subject? I'm asking because my criteria for justifying torture has never arisen. There's no point in asking when such a threat will pass if it hasn't even arisen yet.

I'm asking because by virtue of your earlier examples, you are arguing that the president should have this extreme power, in effect, for the duration of the crisis at which point the prior balance will be restored, just as the Japaenese-Americans were let out after WWII, the Supreme Court passed laws disallowing some of Lincoln's practices towards the end or immediately after the Civil War, etc. My question, then, is how do we know exactly when the duration of the crisis is over, because the War on Terror seems a lot more open-ended than the Civil War or WWII. I'd personally rather the President never have this power than him having it for good so long as he promises to be really, really good with it.

Firstly there are ways of knowing if someone is lying, most experienced psycologists can do it, and I know a number of ways of finding out if given time. However I see tourture being used within the context of a short sharp shock, to condition an individual not to act in the way he did. This to me seems in someways better than imprisonment, and will be more effective psycologically.
Great. So now we've gone from getting anti-terror intelligence to scalding little boys' nuts to teach them not to shoplift anymore? Yeah, that will likely have a strong psychological effect. :rolleyes:

I just saw Modern Marvels last night about torture devices and I am officially against torture of all kinds...except maybe tickling(if that counts as torture) and possibly minor psychological tortures(chinese water torture). The latter being very unlikely. It so screwed up seeing people receive electric shocks.

I'm asking because by virtue of your earlier examples, you are arguing that the president should have this extreme power, in effect, for the duration of the crisis at which point the prior balance will be restored, just as the Japaenese-Americans were let out after WWII, the Supreme Court passed laws disallowing some of Lincoln's practices towards the end or immediately after the Civil War, etc. My question, then, is how do we know exactly when the duration of the crisis is over, because the War on Terror seems a lot more open-ended than the Civil War or WWII. I'd personally rather the President never have this power than him having it for good so long as he promises to be really, really good with it.
The emergency situation in which I think torture would be justified is a very short term one. It starts when a vial of Smallpox or a nuclear weapon arrives on our shores and ends when we find it or when a city is vaporized or when people start growing little pustules and running a high fever.

I just saw Modern Marvels last night about torture devices and I am officially against torture of all kinds...except maybe tickling(if that counts as torture) and possibly minor psychological tortures(chinese water torture). The latter being very unlikely. It so screwed up seeing people receive electric shocks.

The chinese water torture is a truely horrible torture, and is eventually fatal. An electric shock can cause little to no permenant damage, and then the individual has a strong incentive not to do it again. The brain is designed to respond to pain, in most people it is the punishment that will have the most effect. And I would not scald a little boys nuts in such a situation; much in the same way I wouldn't lock a shoplifting child up in prison for five years. This particular example I wouldn't do because: a) that is disproportionant to the crime, and b) can cause permenant damage.

The emergency situation in which I think torture would be justified is a very short term one. It starts when a vial of Smallpox or a nuclear weapon arrives on our shores and ends when we find it or when a city is vaporized or when people start growing little pustules and running a high fever.
Okay, let's work through that:

The NSA sends its monthly batch of leads to the FBI. They don't get to it right away because they're still dealing with the backlog of previous batches, but after about 6-8 weeks, they do, and then they spend another 6-8 weeks going through all the little old ladies talking about hummus sandwiches and people like us bitching about the government on our cell phones, and finally, they find some "chatter" about smallpox and cruise liners and summer time, and they isolate 7 names of people who, depending on how good their translators are, may have been planning an attack, possibly, only you don't know where they are right now.

But of course, you launch a man hunt because, obviously, you have to. It takes a long time, but let's say, by July 4, you've got all 7 in custody. You still don't actually know if any of them is a terrorist, but you can't take that chance, and they're all insisting they're not terrorists and they don't know anything. But you can't take the chance that one of them is lying.

So you torture all of them.

And it has only taken you half a year to get here.

Meanwhile, back in December a terrorist put smallpox into the drinking water on a cruise ship full of Americans in Australia, where it was summer at the time.

See, sometimes even a fantasy doesn't turn out the way you expect, if you don't think it through enough.