torture

[Nonsensical]

There are two responses here.

There is the narcissistic response and there is the mature response.

The narcissist asks what would I do in extreme circumstances? And the mature asks what is society doing?

The narcissist only thinks of themselves while the mature thinks how this will impact society.

The narcissist is immoral while the mature is moral.

The narcissist has a very narrow viewpoint, while the mature looks at the whole of society.

The narcissist thinks their own desires should rule society, while the mature thinks that society should rule the desires of the individual.

The adult narcissist is psychologically damaged and should be referred to a psychologist, while the mature should rally to the defence of society.

It's interesting that most of the posters here are adult narcissists. But this should be no surprise on a site devoted to the cult of the personality.

But we should all be warned that adult narcissism leds to the defence of torture of individuals.

Unlike conventional wisdom adult narcissism is not self love but self hatred. And this is openly expressed here in the desire for torture.

Victor. If somebody murdered your wife or one of your kids or anybody you loved and was very close to you, what would you do?

 

[Mole]

Victor. If somebody murdered your wife or one of your kids or anybody you loved and was very close to you, what would you do?

I am a fallible human being and I might well commit murder in return.

But because I am fallible, I would not try to change murder into an honour killing. I would not try to change the Common Law.

Under Sharia Law it is not a crime to murder infidels. In fact if they won't convert, murder is mandated.

This is the difference between Sharia Law and the Common Law. One is barbarism and one is civilized.

However I freely admit that under extreme circumstance we are all tempted to commit murder.

But extreme circumstances do not make good law.

 

[Nonsensical]

I am a fallible human being and I might well commit murder in return.

But because I am fallible, I would not try to change murder into an honour killing. I would not try to change the Common Law.

Under Sharia Law it is not a crime to murder infidels. In fact if they won't convert, murder is mandated.

This is the difference between Sharia Law and the Common Law. One is barbarism and one is civilized.

However I freely admit that under extreme circumstance we are all tempted to commit murder.

But extreme circumstances do not make good law.

I respect this.

 

[Kalach]

Torture will never be justifiable if the rights of the individual are paramount. If however one is willing to say that a way of life or an institution or a compelling task take precedence, then people can be made subject to that higher purpose. Or perhaps it's possible to say that people can lose their rights and therefore can be made subject to a higher purpose? You'd want to be really, really clear on how it can be that people lose their rights: they're generally regarded as inalienable, and when you're talking about other people's rights, you're talking about yours too.

In any case, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is actually a pragmatic document. It doesn't prove anything much about rights; it just says they exist and outlines how authorities are to respect them.


My basic naive thought is, as a strategist, if one is reliant on interrogation of an enemy, indeed a small number of enemy, then some kind of mistake has been made. But this presumes that openness is the key to all moral endeavors, which is to say, if you decide to be at war with someone, then at war with them you are--you shoot at them, bomb their homes, send soldiers into their capitals--you don't waste time in protracted information exploration sessions. To fight a moral war, one simply doesn't take anything behind closed doors.

That is so very naive I'm sure I should blush.

 

[Frank]

Well, I'm fairly certain that no one would call AQ and the US Military equal in strength and resources. And secondly, what is one of the main reasons we're fighting? I believe it was to free the afghan people from their oppressive regime. What would be one of the hallmarks of said oppressive regime? Torture! So, we should torture too! This way, all the nice civilians who know nothing about us, will get to find out that we practice the same evil behaviors as their former government AND destroy lots of shit in their country AND kill their civilians as "collateral damage". (And thanks to us missing a lot and having bad information often, this happens sometimes even when there aren't any militants around) I'm sure this is a brilliant way to win them over to our side, and they will never get mad at our mistakes.

In short: Torturing AQ members gives our enemies a great propaganda tool that is clear to even the simplest peasant, and reduces the effectiveness of our claim that "We're better than them".

I am fairly certain you are correct. AQ and the U.S. military are not equal in strength. Nowhere in my post did I reference either of those two. If you took my post to be a defense of the U.S. torturing of captives then you were mistaken. My response was to the question in the op "what are your thoughts on torture"

 

[statuesquechica]

Go rent Clearcut (1991) and then we can talk.

Clearcut (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearcut (1991) - Plot Summary

It's about a Papermill in Canada that is cutting down Native American forest.

A young naive lawyer comes into the scene and defends the Native Americans in a heated court case. He romanticizes the Native's way of life when he has no idea.

One of the Natives kidnapps the owner of the paper mill and takes the young lawyer deep into the woods where he shows the lawyer how they run it tribal style. He tortures the owner of the paper mill in ways that I would prefer not to explain. It's grusome, terrifying, and will leave you with a real perspective of Native life.

Us whites idealize them. We have no idea.

^This is a movie. Never happened, from what I read. I am referring to archaeological discoveries. Please don't make assumptions about my motives for posting, I don't "idealize" them, just stating what data has been collected to dispute your assertion about torture being a part of Native American culture.

 

[Nonsensical]

^This is a movie. Never happened, from what I read. I am referring to archaeological discoveries. Please don't make assumptions about my motives for posting, I don't "idealize" them, just stating what data has been collected to dispute your assertion about torture being a part of Native American culture.

First off, it is just as ignorant for you to say it is just a movie as it is for me to say it reflects all native styles.

And second off, I was just recommending it. And more generally than you inferred, because I wasn't saying that you idealized them. It was directing it more or less to the public of this thread. Thanks.

 

[swordpath]

Brother Beat, I agree with you. I copied the passage from my paper as means for fueling the discussion here. The views of the author are not mine. If I were in charge, I would not utilize torture unless absolutely necessary. I'd put as many resources into getting good Intelligence information as timely as possible in order to curtail future risks.

I think sodium pentathol and other means of tapping into a man's mind would very well be morel likely to yield good info as compared to fear/pain/torture. JockTheMotie is right; if those dearest to me were in harm's way, and I had "Mr. Bad Guy" and knew he had info that could spare my loved one's lives, then Mr. Bad Guy is going to make some kind of deal with me.

I think most would agree with that thinking, but Gitmo was a bit much, it was a back alley Bush tactic that yielded little discernable fruit in comparison to the damage it has done. Right?

I gotcha. I wasn't questioning you, despite my quoting you, I was moreso just pointing out the irony of that mind-set. I'm aware that you have nothing to do with it.

Agree with you on Gitmo.

 

[Fuulie]

There are two responses here.

There is the narcissistic response and there is the mature response.

The narcissist asks what would I do in extreme circumstances? And the mature asks what is society doing?

The narcissist only thinks of themselves while the mature thinks how this will impact society.

The narcissist is immoral while the mature is moral.

The narcissist has a very narrow viewpoint, while the mature looks at the whole of society.

The narcissist thinks their own desires should rule society, while the mature thinks that society should rule the desires of the individual.

The adult narcissist is psychologically damaged and should be referred to a psychologist, while the mature should rally to the defence of society.

It's interesting that most of the posters here are adult narcissists. But this should be no surprise on a site devoted to the cult of the personality.

But we should all be warned that adult narcissism leds to the defence of torture of individuals.

Unlike conventional wisdom adult narcissism is not self love but self hatred. And this is openly expressed here in the desire for torture.

While I've read many of your posts in other forums and have come to quite respect you, I think to imply that everyone who defends the practice of torture is narcissistic may be going a bit far.

 

[millerm277]

I am fairly certain you are correct. AQ and the U.S. military are not equal in strength. Nowhere in my post did I reference either of those two. If you took my post to be a defense of the U.S. torturing of captives then you were mistaken. My response was to the question in the op "what are your thoughts on torture"

I understand that and didn't think so, but I have heard this logic actually used to try to defend the US torturing of captives, so it just provided a way for me to go into my opinion on the US use of torture and why it's a bad idea.

 

[Mole]

While I've read many of your posts in other forums and have come to quite respect you, I think to imply that everyone who defends the practice of torture is narcissistic may be going a bit far.

I just come from a movie, "Inglorious Bastards", starring Brad Pitt.

It is a melodrama with beautiful productions values. But it appeals to our sadism.

I found it a truly disgusting movie but it appealed to the audience and made sadism cool.

Of course sadism is not the same as torture. And usually torturers aren't sadists.

I think public sadism is a kind of response to torture. In a sexualized culture, sexualizing physical and emotion abuse somehow makes torture more manageable and acceptable.

Gosh, we are told here, I do a little S&M with my spouse and it doesn't do us any harm.

So public sadism like, "Inglorious Bastards", somehow emotionally domesticates torture. It makes it suburban.

If we can torture one another in fun, in complete trust of course, it makes torture almost acceptable.

We are like children playing bang bang shoot 'em up games when real people are being killed.

 

[Take Five]

I haven't seen Inglorious Basterds yet, but I'm familiar with QT's penchant for violence. I don't think this kind of film, or violent video games, soften us to violence/torture.
Given the trend of increased graphic violence in entertainment, along with the increased popularity of rejecting torture, I don't think there is a link. Most people here seem to be utterly appalled by the subject, and there was a huge public outrage when pics of Abu Ghraib surfaced.

 

[Frank]

I understand that and didn't think so, but I have heard this logic actually used to try to defend the US torturing of captives, so it just provided a way for me to go into my opinion on the US use of torture and why it's a bad idea.

I definitely am sympathetic to your point.

I wonder though what are the opinions on torture if one it was done in complete secrecy so as not to provide bad p.r. and two it did gain information that was vital in preventing terrorist attacks. Personally my gut tells me the torture of a few who are hell bent on harming others is ok to save the lives of hundreds or thousands of innocent people. I admit I have not given this serious thought and am basically shooting from the hip but I would be interested in hearing other opinions on this.

Disclaimer- I am not in any way saying this is the case with the U.S. situation but am looking to see if this type of situation is more palatable to those fervently against torture in any situation.

 

[EcK]

is ok if your troops are doing surgical strikes from earth's orbit.
Is not ok if they're fighting gorilla warriors in the jungle/desert/planet of the Scary Green Things and you're actually counting on public support in a free press democracy.