Waterboarding

[Zarathustra]

The Ticking Time Bomb: Ideals, Torture, and Pragmatic Necessity

If there's a ticking time bomb scenario, and you have apprehended an assailant who very likely has knowledge that could be used to prevent the scenario from occurring, if it does not seem like this information will be gathered from him or her by the time that time bomb stops ticking, then torture is justified.

People who do not recognize this to be the case are allowing their ideals to get in the way of pragmatic necessity.

How stupid an ideal must be that says, "One must never torture somebody, even if doing so could save a million lives."

 

[Metamorphosis]

Because one thing is killing people in a war, another thing is doing it by terrorism. In a war, both sides are following what the state commands them to do. They trust the state to tell them what's the best for their nation. And they are meant to kill armed soldiers, that usually have some fighting chance against them.

No. What you describe is simply the romanticized view of one type of war. Fairness doesn't have a place at the table in war and whether it's your beliefs or the state telling you what to do is largely irrelevant.

You will certainly find a lot of flaws in the arguments because, in the end, it is just my moral judgement, and moral judgements don't mix with logic.

So you would act on something just because of your morals, which can't (or won't) be justified logically? One of the major problems with most people's thoughts on morality is that they think what they feel is above questioning logically. Moral judgements absolutely do mix with logic.

 

[Randomnity]

Sounds pretty inefficient, to say the least. But it isn't the point, right?

If efficiency is the point, should the government be allowed to walk into a random American's house and take them away to be tortured, if they have "reasonable cause" to suspect that although the person is completely innocent of any crime, they could yield the information to save a thousand lives?

By your reasoning, this person's human rights shouldn't matter if a thousand people are saved?

 

[Not_Me]

The principle is simple. Anything goes unless there are mutual agreements to refrain. It is beneficial for us to refrain from torturing enemy soldiers if the other side agree to extend the same favor to our people. Terrorists follow no rules. So there is no reason to extend any unilateral protections to them.

 

[freeeekyyy]

Torture is unacceptable, period.

 

[A window to the soul]

Do you want a quickie confession or not??

 

[Nicodemus]

Do you want a quickie confession or not??

Only priests get those.

 

[A window to the soul]

Waterboarding is what happens when Te-Doms and Ne-Doms collaborate. You get a quick & dirty solution that kicks asses.

 

[Rasofy]

So you would act on something just because of your morals, which can't (or won't) be justified logically? One of the major problems with most people's thoughts on morality is that they think what they feel is above questioning logically. Moral judgements absolutely do mix with logic.

Well, there can be some logic. But a logic that is refutable with another logic that is gonna be as refutable as mine.
If you want a logic, the basic logic is:
Parameter 1 :There is no need to value the life of a person that doesn't value the life of the others.
Parameter 2 :Therefore, if it is possible to save 1 innocent life by torturing one thousand of the above, it is justifiable.''
Parameter 3: For terrorists, parameter 1 is assumed, unless special circumstances are present.
Parameter 4: For anyone else, it should be verified case-by-case.

If efficiency is the point, should the government be allowed to walk into a random American's house and take them away to be tortured, if they have "reasonable cause" to suspect that although the person is completely innocent of any crime, they could yield the information to save a thousand lives?

By your reasoning, this person's human rights shouldn't matter if a thousand people are saved?

No, civilians are innocent til proven guilty. You are right, efficience has limits.

 

[Beargryllz]

Given that so many crimes are committed (and remain unsolved) in America every year, why would we not waterboard all suspects to facilitate quick justice? Surely waterboarding could be justified for this purpose. Terrorists frequently end up dead or imprisoned, but many criminals in our own cities run free. Why not use this powerful tool of justice? Why do we allow crime to persist? Why do we refrain? Why would anyone oppose this if not for their blatant disregard for justice?

 

[A window to the soul]

Given that so many crimes are committed (and remain unsolved) in America every year, why would we not waterboard all suspects to facilitate quick justice? Surely waterboarding could be justified for this purpose. Terrorists frequently end up dead or imprisoned, but many criminals in our own cities run free. Why not use this powerful tool of justice? Why do we allow crime to persist? Why do we refrain? Why would anyone oppose this if not for their blatant disregard for justice?

I like it!

 

[Rasofy]

We also could belt spank the shit out of them.

 

[Randomnity]

Well, there can be some logic. But a logic that is refutable with another logic that is gonna be as refutable as mine.
If you want a logic, the basic logic is:
Parameter 1 :There is no need to value the life of a person that doesn't value the life of the others.
Parameter 2 :Therefore, if it is possible to save 1 innocent life by torturing one thousand of the above, it is justifiable.''

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.

Parameter 3: For terrorists, parameter 1 is assumed, unless special circumstances are present.
Parameter 4: For anyone else, it should be verified case-by-case.

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...?

 

[Beargryllz]

John Yoo is an American hero akin to Patton or Washington

But his bravery is being stifled by this tyrannical administration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos#President_Obama_repudiates_the_torture_memos

Typical communist, muslim, socialist, fascist, secret Kenyan-terrorist trash. This is all part of the downfall of our western society. Now the terrorists will be free to plot our demise, and free from the enhanced interrogation techniques. WAKE UP OBAMA!

We are fucked, America.

 

[Zarathustra]

[exceedingly repetitive/boring posting pattern]

Good thing they closed Guantanamo, too.

And got rid of warrantless wire-tapping (which was justified by the same rationale as waterboarding).

And all the other capitalist, christian, corporatist, fascist, cowboy, neocon trash.

Oh wait, they didn't.

 

[Red Herring]

I would be thankful for someone who decided to break the law to save my life, but I would not want his actions to be legal.

If there's a ticking time bomb scenario, and you have apprehended an assailant who very likely has knowledge that could be used to prevent the scenario from occurring, if it does not seem like this information will be gathered from him or her by the time that time bomb stops ticking, then torture is justified.

People who do not recognize this to be the case are allowing their ideals to get in the way of pragmatic necessity.

How stupid an ideal must be that says, "One must never torture somebody, even if doing so could save a million lives."

Given that so many crimes are committed (and remain unsolved) in America every year, why would we not waterboard all suspects to facilitate quick justice? Surely waterboarding could be justified for this purpose. Terrorists frequently end up dead or imprisoned, but many criminals in our own cities run free. Why not use this powerful tool of justice? Why do we allow crime to persist? Why do we refrain? Why would anyone oppose this if not for their blatant disregard for justice?

There was a famous case in Germany a few years ago. A guy kidnapped a banker's 11 year old son. The police managed to arrest the kidnapper who refused to say where the kidnapped kid was. The Chief of Police feared for the boy's life and instructed a police officer to threaten the kidnapper with physical violence. The officer threatened the man with "pain as you have never experienced it before" but didn't actually touch him. The kidnapper talked and told them the location of the boy. When they found him he was already dead (which the kidnapper had known at the time he gave away the location).
The Chief of Police made a reference in the log book about the event and basically denounced himself which lead to a trial against him and the other police officer. The court found both of them guilty and they had to pay a fine.

Mind you, they didn't torture, only threaten to do so.

This lead to a widespread public debate about the already mentioned ticking bomb scenario.

My position:
1. Human rights - if they are to deserve that name - are universal and unalienable. That means that even a child raping mass murderer has them and never loses them. The right to physical integrity is one of them. (By the way, you can also deduct my position on death penalty from that)

2. There might be a situation when you have to balance one human life against the other or at least one person's right to integrity against the other. An individual thrown into such a situation has to make a decision he or she can live with. However, a state can not codify this, that would basically mean legalizing a breach of law. Does not compute. Once the decision is made, that individual has to carry the consequences. If they saved thousands of lives the court might take that into consideration, but more importantly...what is a few months in jail or paying a fine compared to all those lives you saved? After all, if it is worth torturing and potentially killing another fellow human being (who has the same rights as everybody else) over it, it should be worth accepting the consequences of your violation of his rights. Show some coherence.

3. There is a risk of an open door effect. Once it is allowed to torture suspects, it is up to the individual law enforcer to decide when use that possibility. Where do they stop and who controls them? Where do you draw the line?

4. As for the us versus them mentality, I tend to agree with House:

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL6I7bMsbu4"]House on patriotism[/YOUTUBE]

5. Oh, and on liberty and the Western way of life and all that stuff we have to defend against terrorists.... It may sound cynical, but I would rather live in a country where a few people get killed every year by terrorist attacks (still fewer than by traffic accudents or medical malpractise) than in a country that reads my mail, tortures my Iranian neighbors and supresses the very freedoms it is supposed to defend. Whoever came up with that slogan "freedom isn't free" obviously didn't take theirn semantics too seriously.

 

[Zarathustra]

Given that so many crimes are committed (and remain unsolved) in America every year, why would we not waterboard all suspects to facilitate quick justice? Surely waterboarding could be justified for this purpose. Terrorists frequently end up dead or imprisoned, but many criminals in our own cities run free. Why not use this powerful tool of justice? Why do we allow crime to persist? Why do we refrain? Why would anyone oppose this if not for their blatant disregard for justice?

Obviously you haven't read the torture memos, cuz, if you had, you would know this is thoroughly discussed in them.

The rationale is that the President does not have the same powers granted to him in circumstances of war that he does to take care of crime. All of the authority granted to the Executive to conduct torture is derived from the existence of exigent circumstances of war.

Pretty simple. If, you know, you actually did the reading. Or understood the Constitution.

 

[Beargryllz]

Good thing they closed Guantanamo, too.

And got rid of warrantless wire-tapping (which was justified by the same rationale as waterboarding).

And all the other capitalist, christian, corporatist, fascist, cowboy, neocon trash.

Oh wait, they didn't.

Why on earth would anyone oppose warrantless wire-tapping?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights condemns torture (because it was written by red, hippie, libtarded, brownshirts), yet does not restrict us in our right to obtain information via wiretap.

Wiretapping isn't the topic of this thread, but I think we could probably talk about it anyway, if you really want to.

 

[Beargryllz]

Obviously you haven't read the torture memos, cuz, if you had, you would know this is thoroughly discussed in them.

The rationale is that the President does not have the same powers granted to him in circumstances of war that he does to take care of crime. All of the authority granted to the Executive to conduct torture is derived from the existence of exigent circumstances of war.

Pretty simple. If, you know, you actually did the reading. Or understood the Constitution.

War and crime are one in the same in this case. Terrorists are criminals that we are at war with. We are also at war with Iraq, Afghanistan, drugs, illiteracy, AIDS, and (by technicality) North Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

We have never been without war, don't you see? People are war.

 

[Zarathustra]

War and crime are one in the same in this case.

No, they're actually not.

But I understand why you'd try to squirm through the one hole that seemed available.