| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2008 09:34:34 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's not OK to torture people, ever, for any reason whatsoever! Any nation that engages in state-authorized torture has no right to call itself civilized, and its citizens should speak out loud and clear against such practices.
Is there ANYONE here who honestly believes the above position is open to debate?
R. |
Yes. |
Sad |
Bear_Music's question was "Is there ANYONE here who honestly believes the above position is open to debate?". It is not sad to me. It is an honest answer to a real question. The real question of morality and how it is defined. Some posters here do not wish to discuss any other moral question than the one posed on torture/coercive interrogation. That imo is irresponsible. I have posted that other moral questions are equally valid and I used abortion as one such practice. The reason I use that example is as follows; If one supports abortion (defined as the termination of an innocent unborn) as acceptable and therefore legal/moral, then why would they have a problem with coercively interrogating (causing stress but not killing) a known terrorists committed to slicing and dicing you and yours for a song? This makes no logical sense to me. Obviously not everyone who opposes coercive interrogation are "pro-choice" proponents, but some here are. And those that are, are hypocrites. It is OK to kill an innocent unborn child, but not OK to cause stress for a known murderer of innocent civilians. To me this is just stupid.
Now, as this thread began - I had not made up my mind on the OP's question. As the thread progesssed and there seemed to be no one arguing the "pro-torture" side, I stepped in. The arguments that it is never under any circumstances OK to coercively interrogate someone is false to me. I would even go so far as to say that there are some situations (although extremely limited) when asassination is justified. Not moral, not legal, but justified.
I have not posted anywhere in this thread that torture is a position that I support as a normal course of interrogation. I have come to the conclusion that in some circumstances (although limited), coercive interrogation is useful. Not moral, not legal, but useful.
BTW - I am "pro-choice", pro physician assisted suicide (aka euthenasia), pro capital punishment, and pro coercive interrogation - within a limited scope of application for each aforementioned action. A consistent position (imo) on treating life and death. Either we have authority to take life or we do not. It is not sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. If we have authority to take life, then we certainly have the authority (in limited circumstances) to pretend to take it. Or we don't have any authority to take it at all - ever!
Message edited by author 2008-02-13 10:00:00. |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 09:51:11 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I have come to the conclusion that in some circumstances (although limited), coercive interrogation is useful. Not moral, not legal, but useful. |
Very sad. Bear's post specifically asked whether torture is ever OK in a civilized society. It might be useful, but it's not OK. You might prevent an attack here and there, but you would also forfeit any expectation of decent treatment for your own people in another country. That's not a good trade when there are other effective methods of interrogation that don't involve torture.
Also fascinating that you would choose to skew a post on abortion with the phrase "innocent unborn" when your standard of absolute morality holds that we are all sinners (NOT innocent).
Message edited by author 2008-02-13 10:00:49. |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 10:19:30 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If one supports abortion (defined as the termination of an innocent unborn)... |
Oh yeah, that's not too loaded a definition. I'll then feel perfectly free to define waterboarding as an expression of the perpetrator's homicidal fantasies.
Your machiavellian approach to this discussion is wildly at odds with your core beliefs.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Also fascinating that you would choose to skew a post on abortion with the phrase "innocent unborn" when your standard of absolute morality holds that we are all sinners (NOT innocent). |
In fact, so vile are we that in abscence of baptism, a dead child's soul takes the express elevator to hell. The depthless compassion of believers is truly heart-touching. |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 10:24:34 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
I have come to the conclusion that in some circumstances (although limited), coercive interrogation is useful. Not moral, not legal, but useful. |
Very sad. Bear's post specifically asked whether torture is ever OK in a civilized society. It might be useful, but it's not OK. You might prevent an attack here and there, but you would also forfeit any expectation of decent treatment for your own people in another country. That's not a good trade when there are other effective methods of interrogation that don't involve torture.
Also fascinating that you would choose to skew a post on abortion with the phrase "innocent unborn" when your standard of absolute morality holds that we are all sinners (NOT innocent). |
I'd go a little further than that. Here's my original post/statement, and question:\
Originally posted by bear_music:
It's not OK to torture people, ever, for any reason whatsoever! Any nation that engages in state-authorized torture has no right to call itself civilized, and its citizens should speak out loud and clear against such practices.
Is there ANYONE here who honestly believes the above position is open to debate?
R. |
My real point here is that we, as citizens, ought to feel obligated to speak out against such practices when our nation engages in them. All this "legal/illegal" namby-pamby is disgusting. So are any discussions of "relative morality". Some things are just plain wrong by any conceivable, rational definition of "wrong".
It makes absolutely NO point to try to undermine that position by pointing out other, more questionable, moral judgments that have to be made.
To deliberately torture people, for any "reason" is WRONG!
R.
Message edited by author 2008-02-13 10:25:00. |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 10:42:48 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
It's not OK to torture people, ever, for any reason whatsoever! Any nation that engages in state-authorized torture has no right to call itself civilized, and its citizens should speak out loud and clear against such practices.
Is there ANYONE here who honestly believes the above position is open to debate?
R. |
//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6063386.stm I wouldn't be surprised now if the US numbers would be higher now with all the support at the highest levels.
Another interesting view on the US public's position in general.
Message edited by author 2008-02-13 10:45:32.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2008 10:43:25 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's not OK to torture people, ever, for any reason whatsoever! Any nation that engages in state-authorized torture has no right to call itself civilized, and its citizens should speak out loud and clear against such practices.
Is there ANYONE here who honestly believes the above position is open to debate?
R. |
Yes. |
Sad |
Bear_Music's question was "Is there ANYONE here who honestly believes the above position is open to debate?". It is not sad to me. It is an honest answer to a real question. The real question of morality and how it is defined. Some posters here do not wish to discuss any other moral question than the one posed on torture/coercive interrogation. That imo is irresponsible. I have posted that other moral questions are equally valid and I used abortion as one such practice. The reason I use that example is as follows; If one supports abortion (defined as the termination of an innocent unborn) as acceptable and therefore legal/moral, then why would they have a problem with coercively interrogating (causing stress but not killing) a known terrorists committed to slicing and dicing you and yours for a song? This makes no logical sense to me. Obviously not everyone who opposes coercive interrogation are "pro-choice" proponents, but some here are. And those that are, are hypocrites. It is OK to kill an innocent unborn child, but not OK to cause stress for a known murderer of innocent civilians. To me this is just stupid.
Now, as this thread began - I had not made up my mind on the OP's question. As the thread progesssed and there seemed to be no one arguing the "pro-torture" side, I stepped in. The arguments that it is never under any circumstances OK to coercively interrogate someone is false to me. I would even go so far as to say that there are some situations (although extremely limited) when asassination is justified. Not moral, not legal, but justified.
I have not posted anywhere in this thread that torture is a position that I support as a normal course of interrogation. I have come to the conclusion that in some circumstances (although limited), coercive interrogation is useful. Not moral, not legal, but useful.
BTW - I am "pro-choice", pro physician assisted suicide (aka euthenasia), pro capital punishment, and pro coercive interrogation - within a limited scope of application for each aforementioned action. A consistent position (imo) on treating life and death. Either we have authority to take life or we do not. It is not sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. If we have authority to take life, then we certainly have the authority (in limited circumstances) to pretend to take it. Or we don't have any authority to take it at all - ever! |
What I mean is that the mere fact that people in a civilized society are willing to accept torture or even entertain the idea, is sad.
As for the right to take life, that's largely an unrelated issue, since, in the examples you mention, every attempt is made to ensure that the life is taken quickly and with a minimum of suffering. If a cat is sick, the owner is justified in taking it to the vet and having him put down humanely, it's impossible for the owner to justify taking it outside and spending 45 minutes torturing it to death.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2008 10:53:49 AM · #107 |
Oh, goody. America is more willing to disregard basic human rights than China. Home of the free indeed. :-/ |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 11:09:12 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by bear_music:
It's not OK to torture people, ever, for any reason whatsoever! Any nation that engages in state-authorized torture has no right to call itself civilized, and its citizens should speak out loud and clear against such practices.
Is there ANYONE here who honestly believes the above position is open to debate?
R. |
//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6063386.stm I wouldn't be surprised now if the US numbers would be higher now with all the support at the highest levels.
Another interesting view on the US public's position in general. |
Both of your links appear to me to be relatively accurate in their representation. I'm not sure I agree with the second author's premise that shows like 24 are the reason for the publics acceptance as it is not shown around the world and your 1st article indicates that the acceptance of "some" torture is universal.
The operating sentence for me is located in your 2nd link.
"Ethicists, moralists, activists, journalists and critics of Abu Ghraib need to stop talking and writing as if everyone "knows" that torture is wrong, and start building a public consensus that it really is." |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 11:14:36 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Both of your links appear to me to be relatively accurate in their representation. I'm not sure I agree with the second author's premise that shows like 24 are the reason for the publics acceptance as it is not shown around the world and your 1st article indicates that the acceptance of "some" torture is universal. |
I think the issue around 24 was at the time cadets graduating from West Point were pointing to '24' as justification when asked 'does torture work' or 'well if its wrong, why does it work in 24' There were quite a few articles at the time about that shift in public perception.
Originally posted by Flash:
The operating sentence for me is located in your 2nd link.
"Ethicists, moralists, activists, journalists and critics of Abu Ghraib need to stop talking and writing as if everyone "knows" that torture is wrong, and start building a public consensus that it really is." |
Yup, that was probably the most depressing part of that article.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2008 11:17:23 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I'm not sure I agree with the second author's premise that shows like 24 are the reason for the publics acceptance as it is not shown around the world and your 1st article indicates that the acceptance of "some" torture is universal. |
I don't think that's what he's saying; he's using shows like "24" and the Clint Eastwood "Dirty Harry" portrayal as evidence that we DO accept torture as a justifiable mans to a specific end.
R. |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 11:17:54 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The operating sentence for me is located in your 2nd link.
"Ethicists, moralists, activists, journalists and critics of Abu Ghraib need to stop talking and writing as if everyone "knows" that torture is wrong, and start building a public consensus that it really is." |
As a signatory of the Geneva Convention and several other relevant international agreements, the official position of the United States is that torture is illegal and never justified under ANY circumstances. The fact that some of our citizens (and leaders) have such a poor grasp of this country's stated principles and signed obligations is nothing short of pathetic.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2008 11:51:47 AM · #112 |
I'm relieved to see Canada third from the top in not supporting torture: Italy, Australia/France, Canada. |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 11:55:02 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think the issue around 24 was at the time cadets graduating from West Point were pointing to '24' as justification when asked 'does torture work' or 'well if its wrong, why does it work in 24'... |
Egad. I suppose we can now wait for the spectacle of Harvard grads to ask why it's not permissible to plunge wooden stakes into people's chests when it worked so well in "Buffy". |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 12:04:50 PM · #114 |
//www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/twen-m14.shtml
were concerns like those voiced by the dean of the US Military Academy at West Point and several former American government interrogators. Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan is a lawyer who has for a number of years taught a course on the laws of war to West Point senior cadets. He said 24 was exceptionally popular with his students and told the New Yorkerâs Jane Mayer, âThe kids see it, and say, âIf torture is wrong, what about 24?ââ
...
Mayer also quoted Tony Lagouranis, a former US Army interrogator at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, describing the showâs effect in the field. âEveryone wanted to be a Hollywood interrogator. Thatâs all people did in Iraq was watch DVDs of television shows and movies. What we learned in military schools didnât apply anymore.â
|
|
|
|
02/13/2008 02:51:34 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Mayer also quoted Tony Lagouranis, a former US Army interrogator at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, describing the showâs effect in the field. âEveryone wanted to be a Hollywood interrogator. Thatâs all people did in Iraq was watch DVDs of television shows and movies. What we learned in military schools didnât apply anymore.â |
What this suggests is that the guards at Abu Ghraib were taught correctly in military school, but choose to adopt "hollywood" antics, against their core training. That is a much different scenario than that presented by some posters here, whereby the US government intentionally encouraged gaurds to abuse prisoners. It reads above that their training was in accordance with international law/treaties/conventions. |
|
|
|
02/13/2008 03:38:17 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Mayer also quoted Tony Lagouranis, a former US Army interrogator at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, describing the showâs effect in the field. âEveryone wanted to be a Hollywood interrogator. Thatâs all people did in Iraq was watch DVDs of television shows and movies. What we learned in military schools didnât apply anymore.â |
What this suggests is that the guards at Abu Ghraib were taught correctly in military school, but choose to adopt "hollywood" antics, against their core training. That is a much different scenario than that presented by some posters here, whereby the US government intentionally encouraged gaurds to abuse prisoners. It reads above that their training was in accordance with international law/treaties/conventions. |
yes, you are right, the first quote was probably the more interesting. Though it still leaves their management and their management's management with the question of where did the oversight go. You can train people all you like, but aren't there supposed to be people in charge, too ?
Message edited by author 2008-02-13 15:39:29.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2008 04:01:52 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
yes, you are right, the first quote was probably the more interesting. Though it still leaves their management and their management's management with the question of where did the oversight go. You can train people all you like, but aren't there supposed to be people in charge, too ? |
Absolutely. I was going to post above (but removed it based on the known lightning rod it likely will ignite) that one could surmise (not that I necessarily do - but one could) that this quote actually confirms Rumsfelds position that the troops were trained correctly. It also could support that action taken against the on site General Janice xxxxx? who had the direct responsibility to do the very thing you mention. If the troops were trained correctly and the on site General was asleep at the switch (which BTW was evident in more cases than this one), then she should have been held accountable - an was.
I think your other question though is how far did it go up the chain - and based on this reporting, there exists at least some plausible deniability higher up. "They were trained properly, just not supervised locally to insure training adherence." |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 09:33:35 AM · #118 |
Any guess on how they will interrogate?
"The critical issue is how much will he talk and provide information on where other assets are,...
Bergen said. "I suspect he's not being read his Miranda rights by these Pakistani people who are interrogating him."
|
|
|
|
02/17/2010 10:01:15 AM · #119 |
| WOW, dusting off 2 year old torture threads, nice. |
|
|
|
02/17/2010 01:06:10 PM · #120 |
At least there is no waterboarding...
"The Obama administration so far has shown a preference for taking terror targets out by drone attacks. CIA-operated drone strikes have become particularly frequent in Pakistan. And in September, Fox News reported the details of a presidentially approved Navy Seals strike in Southern Somalia that killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, one of four co-conspirators wanted in the 2002 bombing of an Israel-owned hotel in Mombasa, Kenya. In that instance, there was no effort to take Nabhan alive."
Can't get information from a dead man. Can't get information through coercion. Have to release them after 96 hours if they cannot be transferred to Afgan authority/custody.
Certainly the recently captured commander will simply volunteer information because he wants to help us. |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 08:16:09 AM · #121 |
|
|
|
02/19/2010 08:22:59 AM · #122 |
ok waterboarding. This is an easy subject. Look these people are terrorist. They should be tortured. Waterboarding should be legal for finding out intellegence on other terrorist activity or terrorist cells. If waterboarding one of these yahoos saves one of my comrades then I say why don't we do it more....
|
|
|
|
02/19/2010 11:06:29 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
If waterboarding one of these yahoos saves one of my comrades then I say why don't we do it more.... |
Because the Geneva Convention WE signed says we can't (for ANY reason whatsoever). The United States has taken others to court for waterboarding with the argument that it's torture. |
|
|
|
02/21/2010 10:18:08 AM · #124 |
The R-O-E (Rules of Engagement) and the Geneva convention are both outdated. The ROE is a joke..... The geneva convention is based on a uniform service. i.e. two countries armies in a war. Currently our enemy is not a uniformed army. They appear to be regular people but have a severe hatred for any person that is not muslim or has free views. I do not believe that the insurgents should fall under the geneva convetion.
|
|
|
|
02/22/2010 09:59:14 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
ok waterboarding. This is an easy subject. Look these people are terrorist. They should be tortured. Waterboarding should be legal for finding out intellegence on other terrorist activity or terrorist cells. If waterboarding one of these yahoos saves one of my comrades then I say why don't we do it more.... |
If waterboarding resulted in a "yahoo" giving up false information, wasting resources that might otherwise have saved one of your comrades, would you still support its use?
|
|
