| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2008 03:35:29 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[Even if it DOES work, all this discussion is (IMO) completely missing the point. Dynamiting a pond is an an effective way to catch fish. Murder is an effective solution to the problem of an abusive spouse. Cheating on your exams is an effective way to get a high grade in a course.
It's just WRONG. We shouldn't be torturing people, period. It's barbaric. And I don't care if the people we are torturing my be "barbarians" themselves; it doesn't make it right.
R. |
The morallity of it is as I wrote earlier - a completely different question. I certainly understand why many (perhaps even most) people consider any form of torture (including coercive interrogation) to be morally wrong. There are many actions that a society may choose as acceptable, that a portion, (sometimes even a very vocal portion), consider to be immoral. Abortion, homosexuality, capitol punishment, just to name a few. Each has very specific moral arguments - none that need to be mentioned here. The moral issue of coercive interrogation is addressed (at least for me) within the theory itself. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 03:42:06 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
They understand that it gets the subject to answer their questions. What's more difficult to understand is the veracity of those statements under that kind of duress. I can assure you that if you were subjected to that treatment and thought that I wanted to hear that the midday sky was fluorescent pink, that's exactly what you'd say. If I wanted to hear about KSM and you really knew nothing, you'd tell me whatever you could think up true or not.
Questions of effectiveness aside, torture is illegal, immoral and just plain wrong. Engaging in such activities, no matter the purpose in doing so, would make the U.S. no better than the insurgent scum a running torture room in Iraq, torturing people with electric shock and a power drill. |
I would not be a good test subject. They would get the truth waaaayyyy before any need to induce pain. The illegality of a coercive method and the morallity of employing it, are as I stated above, separate questions. Morally speaking, it is sad to me, that any persons exist in this world where such measures would even need to be considered, yet alone used. Some obviously argue, that even if reprehensible persons do exist, and their intent is to harm innocents, then it still does not excuse nor authorize coercive tactics. I certainly see their point. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 03:53:09 PM · #28 |
We are facing a new breed of "enemy" now-a-days. This enemy is one that likes to go after civilian targets and that scares us. I always thought that we need to be "clean" in our wars, our fighting style, our interrogation and handling of prisoners, and all matters of war- and follow and uphold international law and the Geneva convention and the like, because- we want our people to be treated well if captured.
The problem with the claim that we "get good information" from people by torturing them with waterboarding- is that we have difficulty with information when we get it, and philosophically, you go down a very bad path when you start justifying the means.
and remember...
Those who give up liberty for security....deserve neither. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 03:54:49 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If it didn't work, it would not be used. |
I suppose it depends on what kind of barbaric animal you want you and your fellow citizens to be. WWJD? |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 04:23:09 PM · #30 |
| Oh yeah, torture always works. And of course, the US government is always truthful about its practice. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 05:42:08 PM · #31 |
| People here might be interested in seeing the Oscar-nominated documentary Taxi to the Dark Side ... |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 09:31:22 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
We are facing a new breed of "enemy" now-a-days. This enemy is one that likes to go after civilian targets and that scares us. I always thought that we need to be "clean" in our wars, our fighting style, our interrogation and handling of prisoners, and all matters of war- and follow and uphold international law and the Geneva convention and the like, because- we want our people to be treated well if captured.
The problem with the claim that we "get good information" from people by torturing them with waterboarding- is that we have difficulty with information when we get it, and philosophically, you go down a very bad path when you start justifying the means.
and remember...
Those who give up liberty for security....deserve neither. |
[quote-Louis] Originally posted by Flash:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it didn't work, it would not be used.
I suppose it depends on what kind of barbaric animal you want you and your fellow citizens to be. WWJD?
[/quote]
Blind Justice / Louis,
The questions you raise are moral questions. Valid questions, but still moral ones.
As Louis and I have written on a number of subjects, morality sometimes is in the eye of the beholder.
To accuratley present your "moral authority" to judge coercive interrogation techniques, please post your positions on other "moral" decisions by modern society. What are your positions on Abortion? It is legal - but is it moral? How about capital punishment? Or what about about a miriad of human behaviors that some segments of society deem immoral while others staunchly defend them as "natural" and within the scope of "normalcy". So please define what "moral" is, so that we may accurately assess this criticism you level.
Lastly, if WWJD is the criteriion, then - well...
Message edited by author 2008-02-11 09:35:24. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 10:10:55 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
We are facing a new breed of "enemy" now-a-days. This enemy is one that likes to go after civilian targets and that scares us. I always thought that we need to be "clean" in our wars, our fighting style, our interrogation and handling of prisoners, and all matters of war- and follow and uphold international law and the Geneva convention and the like, because- we want our people to be treated well if captured.
The problem with the claim that we "get good information" from people by torturing them with waterboarding- is that we have difficulty with information when we get it, and philosophically, you go down a very bad path when you start justifying the means.
and remember...
Those who give up liberty for security....deserve neither. |
[quote-Louis] Originally posted by Flash:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it didn't work, it would not be used.
I suppose it depends on what kind of barbaric animal you want you and your fellow citizens to be. WWJD?
|
Blind Justice / Louis,
The questions you raise are moral questions. Valid questions, but still moral ones.
As Louis and I have written on a number of subjects, morality sometimes is in the eye of the beholder.
To accuratley present your "moral authority" to judge coercive interrogation techniques, please post your positions on other "moral" decisions by modern society. What are your positions on Abortion? It is legal - but is it moral? How about capital punishment? Or what about about a miriad of human behaviors that some segments of society deem immoral while others staunchly defend them as "natural" and within the scope of "normalcy". So please define what "moral" is, so that we may accurately assess this criticism you level.
Lastly, if WWJD is the criteriion, then - well... [/quote]
What I was trying to say is- we should be careful how we treat the people we capture. We should take the "moral" high ground so that we can demand the same when our troops are captured. In that sense, for a very lower philosophical reason, the ends don't justify the means. And we avoid looking like a bunch of Jackasses infront of the world, losing our "guiding police -like moral authority" with Abu Ghraib and Git-mo. Its just really bad politics.
On other issues, such as abortion and assisted suicide and even other vice crimes - ie. prostitution and drugs... for example, I guess I lean A bit toward Libertarian theory, less of paternalistic state control. I'm not so naive as to think that we don't need to protect our citizens and our strategic interests. And we need a CIA and an FBI and covert intelligence agencies. Just don't torture people, at least publically- and don't lie and destroy evidence pertaining to this business. And then don't have a bunch of fear mongerers say it wasn't torture, but it was still necessary...
Message edited by author 2008-02-11 10:11:35. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 12:38:07 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Flash:
To accuratley present your "moral authority" to judge coercive interrogation techniques, please post your positions on other "moral" decisions by modern society. |
No, I don't think that's necessary. It's only necessary to point out the colossal hypocrisy of a regime that would define itself as purveyors of compassion and liberty while reserving those high-minded sentiments strictly for its own citizens.
Originally posted by Flash:
Lastly, if WWJD is the criteriion, then - well... |
As a "rabid atheist", I was of course speaking strictly tongue-in-cheek. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 12:40:34 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
We should take the "moral" high ground... Just don't torture people, at least publically... |
Hm. The fluidity of your definition of "morality" is disturbing. Either you believe your government should not torture, or you don't. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 01:07:26 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
To accuratley present your "moral authority" to judge coercive interrogation techniques, please post your positions on other "moral" decisions by modern society. |
No, I don't think that's necessary. It's only necessary to point out the colossal hypocrisy of a regime that would define itself as purveyors of compassion and liberty while reserving those high-minded sentiments strictly for its own citizens. |
The colossal hypocrisy is only applicable in context of what is immoral? You claim that coercive interrogation techniques are immoral (and I likely even agree), however, societies and their individual members do many actions that are deemed immoral. So to paint the brush of "hypocracy", might well spill some on yourself - of course given you hold any positions that you deem moral, when others in your society believe otherwise.
What exactly is the term for one hypocrite calling another a hypocrite?
There are distinctions between legal, illegal, moral, and immoral - with some items being a varied number of combinitions of each. With respect to coercive interrogation and more specifically waterboarding, it was legal, and now is not (based on new laws passed by congress). The morality of it did not change. In addition to this mix, we should add justification - which sometimes gets confused with one's determination of morality. For instance - is it legal/illegal/moral or immoral for a man and a woman to sit alone in a public place without being married? The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask.
That is why, the answers to such moral questions as abortion, capital punishment, physician assisted suicide, suicide itself, etc. are important. Is it legal or immoral to have relations with a 13 year old? Kind of depends on several factors. Is this the 18th century or the 21st? Is it man on boy or man on girl or boy on boy or boy on girl etc.etc etc. Both legality and morality are factors with some situations being both illegal and immoral, while others are either illegal or immoral but not both. Some would argue that some circumstances (read 13 year old boy with a 13 year old girl) are both legal and moral. So your argument that morality is not necessary to define, I think is inaccurate. It is very much required - especially for those who charge hypocracy. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 01:30:59 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You claim that coercive interrogation techniques ... |
It's much easier to justify them if you don't call them what they really are; torture.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 01:39:31 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Flash:
For instance - is it legal/illegal/moral or immoral for a man and a woman to sit alone in a public place without being married? The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask. |
So are you now saying the only type of morality that exists is relative and there is no absolute ? I'm sure you've said the opposite on some other occasions.
On the original question, I find it more concerning the amount of lying and deceit that is being practised by the politicians in this matter. From 'we don't torture' to 'We do torture, if it is convenient' to 'we don't do that any more, so lets not bother talking about it' or 'but we might do it again in the future if its expedient' all while trying to claim some moral high ground and being signatories to a UN convention banning the specific practices being discussed. If morality is relative or not, this doesn't land the current government of the US and by association the citizens, very high on any particular moral pole.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 01:46:45 PM · #39 |
A Catholic?
Originally posted by Flash:
What exactly is the term for one hypocrite calling another a hypocrite?
|
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 02:14:31 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
For instance - is it legal/illegal/moral or immoral for a man and a woman to sit alone in a public place without being married? The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask. |
So are you now saying the only type of morality that exists is relative and there is no absolute ? |
No. I'm saying that if you are arguing against coercive interrogation based on a morality argument, then you need to define what moral and immoral are. Something that can be hard to do - but must be done in order to accurately portray your argument. Now the counter argument may inculde some measure of relativity, however, the primary argument, must define what morality is or is not. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 02:22:11 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
For instance - is it legal/illegal/moral or immoral for a man and a woman to sit alone in a public place without being married? The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask. |
So are you now saying the only type of morality that exists is relative and there is no absolute ? |
No. I'm saying that if you are arguing against coercive interrogation based on a morality argument, then you need to define what moral and immoral are. Something that can be hard to do - but must be done in order to accurately portray your argument. Now the counter argument may inculde some measure of relativity, however, the primary argument, must define what morality is or is not. |
The original question wasn't about morality, though, until you took it down that track. Perhaps asking yourself if it is the right thing for your country to be doing might be an easier question.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 02:28:32 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
For instance - is it legal/illegal/moral or immoral for a man and a woman to sit alone in a public place without being married? The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask. |
So are you now saying the only type of morality that exists is relative and there is no absolute ? |
No. I'm saying that if you are arguing against coercive interrogation based on a morality argument, then you need to define what moral and immoral are. Something that can be hard to do - but must be done in order to accurately portray your argument. Now the counter argument may inculde some measure of relativity, however, the primary argument, must define what morality is or is not. |
The original question wasn't about morality, though, until you took it down that track. Perhaps asking yourself if it is the right thing for your country to be doing might be an easier question. |
I don't think it is an easy question at all. I think it is a very difficult question, one that is evidenced by the replys here as well as the congressional investigations, investigative journalism reporting and so forth. Several posters in this thread have written phrases like "it is worng" or "is it the right thing to do"? These are either legal questions or moral ones. Or both. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 02:39:55 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
You claim that coercive interrogation techniques ... |
It's much easier to justify them if you don't call them what they really are; torture. |
You must be referring to terms like "pro-CHOICE" or "a woman's right to choose"
Each positioner has terms that maximixe or minimize the impact based on where they fall on the questions of legality/morality. This is not new news. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 02:40:01 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Flash:
For instance - is it legal/illegal/moral or immoral for a man and a woman to sit alone in a public place without being married? The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask. |
So, you espouse moral relativism? You'd make a good Catholic.
I will decline your request to define various words on your terms, and point out that I personally made no claim to a moral high ground, nor did I espouse any particular set of moral rules. However, you may interpret in any way you like my obvious disgust at the American government hypocritically using torture while claiming the moral high ground in its current adventure. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 02:46:29 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
You claim that coercive interrogation techniques ... |
It's much easier to justify them if you don't call them what they really are; torture. |
You must be referring to terms like "pro-CHOICE" or "a woman's right to choose"
Each positioner has terms that maximixe or minimize the impact based on where they fall on the questions of legality/morality. This is not new news. |
That is a different argument. Why do you assume to know my position on that? How is that relevant to this discussion?
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 02:52:49 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
For instance - is it legal/illegal/moral or immoral for a man and a woman to sit alone in a public place without being married? The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask. |
So, you espouse moral relativism? You'd make a good Catholic. |
I do not espouse moral relativism. It is what I am reading in your posts, that you practice it. A main reason why I am so insistent on defining the terms, so that we can have a chance at actually agreeing or disagreeing based upon defined terms.
I for one, believe that we as a society, can agree that any particular thing to be immoral, yet still accept its practice. We can even pass laws to make it legal. That does not change its' morality. |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 02:54:01 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
For instance - is it legal/illegal/moral or immoral for a man and a woman to sit alone in a public place without being married? The answer is - all of the above. It is legal. It is also illegal. It is moral. And it is immoral. Just depends on what country you are in and who you ask. |
So are you now saying the only type of morality that exists is relative and there is no absolute ? |
No. I'm saying that if you are arguing against coercive interrogation based on a morality argument, then you need to define what moral and immoral are. Something that can be hard to do - but must be done in order to accurately portray your argument. Now the counter argument may inculde some measure of relativity, however, the primary argument, must define what morality is or is not. |
In some threads, you claim a moral absolute, particularly as espoused by the scriptures. In this one, you claim moral relativism. Specifically that it's OK to severely mistreat someone as long as your goals are for the greater good. How can you have it both ways? Perhaps you choose your morality to suit your arguments. Does that make you a moral opportunist? A hypocrite?
Do you think Jesus would waterboard someone? Make them stand in "stress positions" for hours? Keep them awake for days at a time until they are delirious and hallucinating?
Message edited by author 2008-02-11 14:56:13.
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 02:54:58 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I don't think it is an easy question at all. I think it is a very difficult question, one that is evidenced by the replys here as well as the congressional investigations, investigative journalism reporting and so forth. Several posters in this thread have written phrases like "it is worng" or "is it the right thing to do"? These are either legal questions or moral ones. Or both. |
Some people would disagree with you; or at least they used to.
Bush Calls Freedom from Torture "Inalienable Human Right"
Torture is an Affront to Human Dignity Everywhere, Bush Says
U.S. Remains Steadfastly Committed to Laws Prohibiting Torture
U.S. Says Prohibition of Torture a Basic Principle of International Law
|
|
|
|
02/11/2008 02:56:56 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
You claim that coercive interrogation techniques ... |
It's much easier to justify them if you don't call them what they really are; torture. |
You must be referring to terms like "pro-CHOICE" or "a woman's right to choose"
Each positioner has terms that maximixe or minimize the impact based on where they fall on the questions of legality/morality. This is not new news. |
That is a different argument. Why do you assume to know my position on that? How is that relevant to this discussion? |
I do not know your position, nor do I need to. The point is not your position, rather the inference that 2 positions exist. Both claimed by each side to be "right". One side claims the legality of the practice, the other claims the immorality of it. Now one of them is wrong.
Thus - in the same vein, which side is wrong when it comes to coercive interrogation. The side that claimed it was legal or the side that claims that it is immorral? |
|
|
|
02/11/2008 03:00:12 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Some people would disagree with you; or at least they used to. |
It seems that there are many more who disagree with me as well. I truly believe that fewer would disagree, if they actually read my posts. |
|
