Waterboarding

[Beargryllz]

No, they're actually not.

Is a terrorist not a criminal?

Is a terrorist an enemy combatant (soldier) or a criminal?

Is a terrorist both?

 

[Zarathustra]

Is a terrorist not a criminal?

The point is that a criminal is not, by definition, a terrorist.

Figure out the distinction between trying to prevent an act of war and trying to resolve a crime.

As much difficulty as you seem to be having with the idea, it's really not that tough to figure out.

 

[Beargryllz]

The point is that a criminal is not, by definition, a terrorist.

Figure out the distinction between trying to prevent an act of war and trying to resolve a crime.

As much difficulty as you seem to be having with the idea, it's really not that tough to figure out.

Aren't resolving crimes and preventing acts of war both just actions?

 

[Zarathustra]

Aren't resolving crimes and preventing acts of war both just actions?

If you lack the intellectual capacity to make a distinction between various kinds of actions, then yes.

 

[Beargryllz]

If you lack the intellectual capacity to make a distinction between various kinds of actions, then yes.

What would a person of excellent intellectual capacity determine the distinction to be?

On one hand, we have a person preventing an act of war (by implication, preventing harm to befoul the victims of this act)

On the other, we have a person resolving a crime (by implication, preventing the perpetrator from continuing to harm others)

Who is just in depriving the human rights of the criminal/warrior?

 

[Zarathustra]

What would a person of excellent intellectual capacity determine the distinction to be?

An act of war takes place in the context of war; a crime does not.

As I said: simple.

If you're going to (continue to) make retarded arguments, I have no more to say to you here.

 

[A window to the soul]

We also could belt spank the shit out of them.

Yes. Let's spank them with their own belt.

 

[Beargryllz]

An act of war takes place in the context of war; a crime does not.

As I said: simple.

If you're going to (continue to) make retarded arguments, I have no more to say to you here.

This kind of ultimatum is unnecessary. I understand that you are a highly proficient debater and I cannot see why you would deprive the world of your talents, beliefs, and ideas on behalf of little, old me.

Do humans at war have rights?

 

[Rasofy]

Even if we assume parameter 1 (arguable by any stretch of the imagination, since we don't live in a simplistic eye-for-an-eye world), parameter 2 does not logically follow, because torture is not the same thing as killing. If it were, there wouldn't be animal cruelty laws, since animals can legally be killed humanely (either for food, because they're hurt, or because they're unwanted, or really just because). You'll have to do better than that.

You are interpreting too narrowly. The fact we don't allow torture to some animals means we atribute value to their lives and general well-being.

Well, how are we defining terrorist? Does someone have to kill innocent people before they're considered a terrorist? Just one person or many? Do they have to torture others before being considered a terrorist? How badly? What if they were brainwashed as a child, a la child soldier horror? What if they were ordered to kill others under threat that their family would be killed? What if the government thinks they're a terrorist, but the guy in charge of torturing disagrees? What about the opposite scenario? What if they're kinda sorta a terrorist, but not really a bad one, and besides you kinda understand their motivations, they're just misguided, and...?

I don't have answers to all these questions. This is the kind of thread where the fact you don't state an opinion gives you a great edge. Ti-doms and Enneagrams 5 tend to have this vice I'm trying to avoid. Dissecting ideas and finding flaws is quite easy when dealing with sensitive matters. I'm offering a solution. It's better than ignoring there's a problem that requires one. There are gonna be innocents suffering and dying no matter what, but there are viable ways to make the number as acceptable as possible.

 

[Randomnity]

You are interpreting too narrowly. The fact we don't allow torture to some animals means we atribute value to their lives and general well-being.

I don't have answers to all these questions. This is the kind of thread where the fact you don't state an opinion gives you a great edge. Ti-doms and Enneagrams 5 tend to have this vice I'm trying to avoid. Dissecting ideas and finding flaws is quite easy when dealing with sensitive matters. I'm offering a solution. It's better than ignoring there's a problem that requires one. There are gonna be innocents suffering and dying no matter what, but there are viable ways to make the number as acceptable as possible.

Um, why should anyone blindly accept a "solution" that you're not even prepared to defend with logic? I have NEVER met an INTP who thought dissecting ideas was a vice...

You're the one proposing a "solution", so your solution is the one under discussion at the moment. Besides, it should be obvious what my opinion is.

 

[21%]

Torture is never ethical, but sometimes you just need to do unethical things to achieve what you believe is the "greater good". Humans are tragically fallible in that way.

In the end, there's no worldly "right" or "wrong". It's all relative.

 

[Zarathustra]

Torture is never ethical, but sometimes you just need to do unethical things to achieve what you believe is the "greater good". Humans are tragically fallible in that way.

It can be ethical.

When you do it to achieve the greater good, it is because achieving the greater good is the ethical thing to do.

 

[Blank]

I'm for not being a hypocritical dick of a country.

Who's with me?

 

[Edgar]

What do you think of the effectiveness of Waterboarding? Do you think it is a viable means of obtaining information?

How the hell would I know? I'm not a professional interrogator. And I'm guessing neither is anybody here.
As far as I am concerned, whatever works, they should use it. And if waterboarding isn't effective in obtaining accurate information, then the interrogators will rely on other, more effective methods. I see no need for anybody else to put their 2 cents into it. Let the professionals do their job.

 

[Zarathustra]

I'm for not being a hypocritical dick of a country.

Who's with me?

It's not hypocritical when you're better than them.

How the hell would I know? I'm not a professional interrogator. And I'm guessing neither is anybody here.
As far as I am concerned, whatever works, they should use it. And if waterboarding isn't effective in obtaining accurate information, then the interrogators will rely on other, more effective methods. I see no need for anybody else to put their 2 cents into it. Let the professionals do their job.

+1

 

[Lark]

Waterboarding, it sounds like a sport, something like surfing.

Its not the only interrogation technique that's used which shouldnt be, Amnesty International could tell you that, although there's a lot of tricks which wouldnt be unknown to most school yard bullies too, dont need to be over dramatic about it. Threaten peoples loved ones, demonstrate that you can destroy the things people love, pull people out of chairs by the hair, force fizzy water up the nose.

The medicine could be worse than the disease. For the most part I believe that. Films like Unthinkable (I think that's the one) which feature torture in a positive light as saving lives in the event of concealed nukes dont persuade me any. If you've gotten to the point of lunatics concealing bombs its the same as kidnapping or rampaging nazis spraying campsites with gun fire, its already too late. At the point of cultural ferment or decay a social intervention of some sort was warranted which never happened.

 

[Rasofy]

Yesterday my constitutional law class teacher talked about a great article describing scenarios where torture should be not only allowed but enforced. I found it pretty interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/arts/27iht-IDSIDE28.html

 

[Orangey]

LOL.

 

[Halla74]

How about sodium pentathol?

A lot less violent, perhaps much more effective.

A Professor of mine is a retired military officer.
He held a diplomatic position during the Cold War.
Several defectors came through his office.
There were also a few folks that "accidentally wound up there."
His comment to me was very interesting.
He said most successful interrogations do not begin with violence.
They begin with a cigarrette.
Once the captive realizes they are indeed in the custody of their sworn enemy, and that they are being treated with kindness, rather than cruelty, you'd be surprised at how much they tell and how quickly, especially if they are not being treated well by their superiors.

I'm sure some interrogations get ugly, especially when there is very little time and alot on the line.
Such is the price of war I'm afraid.
Not good stuff.

 

[freeeekyyy]

I'm for not being a hypocritical dick of a country.

Who's with me?

:hi: