People in other countries think it is immoral for our woman to wear tight fitting clothes. I personally see nothing entirely wrong with torturing someone who is a known enemy combatant who might hold information that would save American or Western lives. Obviously you might run into issues of abuse of torturing someone picked up in there home, but finding someone on the battlefield? That should be free game. Once you take up arms against a country you are no longer a person, but an enemy and you should lose all rights you have in the eyes of the country you are fighting.
Back to my stance, yes, I would since I personally believe torture could result in saving lives in much larger numbers than just my own.
It is also been used by some very bloody revolutions that paved the way for the democracy we enjoy today, not to mention the idea of killing mass civilians to end the worst war in the history of the world. I should ask you the same since you seem to be in love with some utopian ideal that we can have a safe world through nothing else but moral superiority which is a laughable ideal at best.
No, being willing to die for a belief can be justifiable. Being willing to die for the sake of indefinite, illegal imprisonment is crazy. As someone else tangently mentioned, I'm guessing you're a teenager.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
I am extremely happy that the majority of people don't share your incredibly horrible world-view.
Our country is based upon the rule of law first and foremost. If we do not live up to the standards that have been set, then we betray ourselves first. Choosing to ignore them for the sake of expediency is a sure path to destruction and ruin.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
My POV.
If I had a very good reason to believe that there is an imminent threat of catastrophe, then I would say to extract the information by any means necessary.
Let me illustrate:
An individual who has known connections to terrorist, or is a terrorist who has documents that a nuclear device is in place and about to be detonated. In this case I'd say do what needs doing. No, I'm not thrilled to say it, but we're talking about extraordinary evidence of an imminent and extraordinary calamity. In my mind that is completely different than having someone in captivity and using torture without knowing of any such threat. A torturing fishing expedition if you will. If the second is policy, let's cut the moralizing, and admit that we're no better than Hamas or Saddam and that we do what we please when we like. Less hypocritical. After all, Hamas thinks just the same way. No Utopian ideals will accomplish their goals. They are "entitled" to act as they do and who said we wouldn't do the same in the same circumstance. An expedient evil.
If I had a very good reason to believe that there is an imminent threat of catastrophe, then I would say to extract the information by any means necessary.
Let me illustrate:
An individual who has known connections to terrorist, or is a terrorist who has documents that a nuclear device is in place and about to be detonated. In this case I'd say do what needs doing. No, I'm not thrilled to say it, but we're talking about extraordinary evidence of an imminent and extraordinary calamity. In my mind that is completely different than having someone in captivity and using torture without knowing of any such threat. A torturing fishing expedition if you will. If the second is policy, let's cut the moralizing, and admit that we're no better than Hamas or Saddam and that we do what we please when we like. Less hypocritical. After all, Hamas thinks just the same way. No Utopian ideals will accomplish their goals. They are "entitled" to act as they do and who said we wouldn't do the same in the same circumstance. An expedient evil.
Anubis
No Lifer
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
That's fucking idiotic.
No where did I say or subscribe to some utopian ideal. Nor did I say that nothing but moral superiority would guarantee safety, or anything close to that.
What I said, and let me make it abundantly clear since it seems some people can't fucking read plain English and comprehend it :
WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE RULE OF LAW. PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE.
WE LIVE IN A VIOLENT WORLD IN WHICH WE WILL HAVE TO RIGHTFULLY KILL PEOPLE IN DEFENSE OF OUR NATION.
LOWERING OUR STANDARDS TO THE STANDARDS OF ENEMIES, SUCH AS THE EMPLOYMENT OF STATE-SPONSORED TORTURE, IS THE ANTITHESIS OF WHAT WE STAND FOR AS A NATION.
We won WW2 without the systematic or accepted use of torture. We executed plenty of enemies that deserved it fully. We also prosecuted enemies that employed torture on civilians and/or our own service personnel as WAR CRIMINALS.
Teenager? No.
I am a 24 year old. When people were busy bitching about Israel I lived there from 18-21, I have friends in Gaza and the West Bank who hate Israel but I can still sit down and have coffee and play chess with. When people myself included said nuke Iran I went there and found out that the people there are good people, but there leadership is crazy. I've gone to Russia to try and see what Russian people are like, I have traveled through China to see what Chinese people are like. I've seen people shot down in Israel before they could detonate suicide vests, I've seen people hanged in Iran for crimes that would get jail terms here.
I've come to realize that war is a fact of life and conflict will always occur because there are people who have power and people who want power. You and the rest of your moralistic ilk here can sit and bitch from coffee shops and behind your Starbucks and leftist professors all you want about the world, but the blood of American soldiers has enabled you to do that. You are protected by your Oceans and by your reputation, a protection that has enabled America to grow into a economic powerhouse that gives it a new protection (economic dependence) . Do you think the world caters to Americas every need because of its morals and ethics?
You paid for a reputation of dominance in blood through the century, you have never had armies mass on your borders and attack your homelands controlling your cities, you never had to worry about an enemy you could see. You have the privilege of looking down on countries that fight wars every few years, that can look out there home and see enemy tanks standing there pointing at them.
No my views are not the ones of a teenager who sees war as glorified, though I have never fought in it, I know many who have and war is terrible for all parties involved and at the end of it that generation is ruined or tainted. Your views on the other hand represent a very normal American university student who perhaps has one too many leftist professors and still sees good morals and ethics as the keys to world peace.
I can understand the blindness though, living in a country where no matter who is elected your life will relatively go on the same, where power is transitioned peacefully, where you don't have to wonder when a subgroup of fanatics is going to overthrow the government or if war is going to break out and you will be called to defend your borders. Your life is relatively carefree compared to the majority of people in this world and that gives you the ability to nonchalantly sit there and try to impose your idea of ethics in a subject I doubt has ever affected your life.
Torture is needed at times, it is not preferred, its results are dubious at best, I do not become my enemy because I use tactics to save my people, that is a bullshit leftist ideologies that does nothing but weaken the military. If torturing 20 people will save 20 000 than it is a small price to pay.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
24 years old? You're far too old to be a stupid little bitch who discards the rule of law for expediency.
Btw, I'm a classical conservative with a pro-military pro-gun rights pro capital punishment (for fitting crimes) outlook, so you can take your 'you don't agree with me so you must be a coffee house liberal' bullshit and stuff it up your undereducated ass.
Any number of great Presidents such as Eisenhower and Reagan have kept our country safe without the use of such vile tactics as torture.
Stupid little bitch? Did I touch a soft spot? Little sensitive? I notice you ignore all the points I made, that is fine, as I said thanks to the blood of Americans you are able to do that without worry, you can go from birth to death in complete ignorance of the world because of the safeness of America and the fact in all likelihood that will not change anytime soon.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
You didn't have *any* points, only strawmen arguments and VAST assumptions about people and ideas. Your entire post above, and the ones preceding it, are almost purely opinion-based drivel, based upon your ASSUMPTIONS about what other people are thinking or why they are thinking the way they do.
Assumptions you make all the time? I made points, you can chose to ignore them that is fine. Either way a very large number of people in countries that are actually threatened by Islam extremism agree with me, people who are affected by it daily, as can be seen by peoples idea to send him off to Saudi Arabia. Something you said was fine to do (Torture him in a different country.) So many of your morals are not as strong as you wish they were.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
A reply with detail on each in bold.
Teenager? No.
I am a 24 year old. When people were busy bitching about Israel I lived there from 18-21, I have friends in Gaza and the West Bank who hate Israel but I can still sit down and have coffee and play chess with. When people myself included said nuke Iran I went there and found out that the people there are good people, but there leadership is crazy. I've gone to Russia to try and see what Russian people are like, I have traveled through China to see what Chinese people are like. I've seen people shot down in Israel before they could detonate suicide vests, I've seen people hanged in Iran for crimes that would get jail terms here.
Anecdotal travel history does not = a reasoned outlook on politics and law.
I've come to realize that war is a fact of life and conflict will always occur because there are people who have power and people who want power. You and the rest of your moralistic ilk here can sit and bitch from coffee shops and behind your Starbucks and leftist professors all you want about the world, but the blood of American soldiers has enabled you to do that. You are protected by your Oceans and by your reputation, a protection that ahs enabled America to grow into a economic powerhouse that gives it a new reputation. Do you think the world caters to Americas every need because of its morals and ethics?
Our soldiers have indeed sacrificed an untold amount in the service of our nation. Our nation is based upon laws, which were formed from ideals to rise above what came before, and to offer freedom and opportunity to it's citizens. It is ASININE to assume that because a person doesn't unilaterally support ALL actions of war, or elements thereof, that they are unpatriotic, that it has anything to do with 'leftist' professors. In the grand showdown with the Soviet Union that culminated with the Reagan years (I think you'll agree, Reagan was no leftist), the whole point was they were a truly evil empire as a government. This didn't mean that Russians were subhuman or any of that nonsense, but that the machinery of Communism and oppression were LOGICALLY and MORALLY inferior, and the enemy of freedom. Our freedom exists because we have laws, laws that are based upon constitutional ideals, extolled in the bill of rights, and defended by the blood of patriots over centuries. It is abhorrent to me that we would risk all of this to begin regressing into the methods of barbarians and terrorists.
You paid for a reputation of dominance in blood through the century, you have never had armies mass on your borders and attack your homelands controlling your cities, you never had to worry about an enemy you could see. You have the privilege of looking down on countries that fight wars every few years, that can look out there home and see enemy tanks standing there pointing at them.
Tell that to the US veterans of WW2 who with allied forces stormed Fortress Europe. Tell that to the Marines who bitterly earned yards of earth with blood in the Pacific theatre. They saw their enemies up close, and by and large, they don't support such atrocities. In fact, they fought and died not only to protect our nation and what we stand for, but to liberate oppressed allies and civilian populations who were undergoing varying forms of torture and inhumane treatment that you would have us support as SOP.
No my views are not the ones of a teenager who sees war as glorified, though I have never fought in it, I know many who have and war is terrible for all parties involved and at the end of it that generation is ruined or tainted. Your views on the other hand represent a very normal American university student who perhaps has one too many leftist professors and still sees good morals and ethics as the keys to world peace.
More blanket and grossly wrong assumptions.
I can understand the blindness though, living in a country where no matter who is elected your life will relatively go on the same, where power is transitioned peacefully, where you don't have to wonder when a subgroup of fanatics is going to overthrow the government or if war is going to break out and you will be called to defend your borders. Your life is relatively carefree compared to the majority of people in this world and that gives you the ability to nonchalantly sit there and try to impose your idea of ethics in a subject I doubt has ever affected your life.
Strawman. Assuming someone is blind because they don't agree with you, and then giving a preposterous hypothetical that because someone doesn't live in the line of fire that they can't have a rational perspective on the issues at hand. Pathetic.
Torture is needed at times, it is not preferred, its results are dubious at best, I do not become my enemy because I use tactics to save my people, that is a bullshit leftist ideologies that does nothing but weaken the military. If torturing 20 people will save 20 000 than it is a small
Strawman. Torture is not a left vs. right issue, it's a right vs. wrong issue. Our nation has historically viewed torture as a SERIOUS crime, and it should go on being viewed as such. Also fail to see how torturing people aids the military. Indeed, the repercussions of such debacles as Abu Ghraib and this example, are of a diabolical nature. We lose the respect of allies, and even the common civilian in other nations may begin to unfairly look at our servicemen as supportive of such travesties.
Being strong is standing up for your values. It is not only fair and just, it is ideal to crush your enemies with extreme prejudice, if war is the answer. If a criminal or terrorist has perpetrated crimes which deserve death, execute him swiftly. But I will never yield to accepting torture as an acceptable behavior on behalf of me or my country. And please stop with the strawman of 'torture XX, save XXXX', as it assumes MUCH.
Teenager? No.
I am a 24 year old. When people were busy bitching about Israel I lived there from 18-21, I have friends in Gaza and the West Bank who hate Israel but I can still sit down and have coffee and play chess with. When people myself included said nuke Iran I went there and found out that the people there are good people, but there leadership is crazy. I've gone to Russia to try and see what Russian people are like, I have traveled through China to see what Chinese people are like. I've seen people shot down in Israel before they could detonate suicide vests, I've seen people hanged in Iran for crimes that would get jail terms here.
Anecdotal travel history does not = a reasoned outlook on politics and law.
I've come to realize that war is a fact of life and conflict will always occur because there are people who have power and people who want power. You and the rest of your moralistic ilk here can sit and bitch from coffee shops and behind your Starbucks and leftist professors all you want about the world, but the blood of American soldiers has enabled you to do that. You are protected by your Oceans and by your reputation, a protection that ahs enabled America to grow into a economic powerhouse that gives it a new reputation. Do you think the world caters to Americas every need because of its morals and ethics?
Our soldiers have indeed sacrificed an untold amount in the service of our nation. Our nation is based upon laws, which were formed from ideals to rise above what came before, and to offer freedom and opportunity to it's citizens. It is ASININE to assume that because a person doesn't unilaterally support ALL actions of war, or elements thereof, that they are unpatriotic, that it has anything to do with 'leftist' professors. In the grand showdown with the Soviet Union that culminated with the Reagan years (I think you'll agree, Reagan was no leftist), the whole point was they were a truly evil empire as a government. This didn't mean that Russians were subhuman or any of that nonsense, but that the machinery of Communism and oppression were LOGICALLY and MORALLY inferior, and the enemy of freedom. Our freedom exists because we have laws, laws that are based upon constitutional ideals, extolled in the bill of rights, and defended by the blood of patriots over centuries. It is abhorrent to me that we would risk all of this to begin regressing into the methods of barbarians and terrorists.
You paid for a reputation of dominance in blood through the century, you have never had armies mass on your borders and attack your homelands controlling your cities, you never had to worry about an enemy you could see. You have the privilege of looking down on countries that fight wars every few years, that can look out there home and see enemy tanks standing there pointing at them.
Tell that to the US veterans of WW2 who with allied forces stormed Fortress Europe. Tell that to the Marines who bitterly earned yards of earth with blood in the Pacific theatre. They saw their enemies up close, and by and large, they don't support such atrocities. In fact, they fought and died not only to protect our nation and what we stand for, but to liberate oppressed allies and civilian populations who were undergoing varying forms of torture and inhumane treatment that you would have us support as SOP.
No my views are not the ones of a teenager who sees war as glorified, though I have never fought in it, I know many who have and war is terrible for all parties involved and at the end of it that generation is ruined or tainted. Your views on the other hand represent a very normal American university student who perhaps has one too many leftist professors and still sees good morals and ethics as the keys to world peace.
More blanket and grossly wrong assumptions.
I can understand the blindness though, living in a country where no matter who is elected your life will relatively go on the same, where power is transitioned peacefully, where you don't have to wonder when a subgroup of fanatics is going to overthrow the government or if war is going to break out and you will be called to defend your borders. Your life is relatively carefree compared to the majority of people in this world and that gives you the ability to nonchalantly sit there and try to impose your idea of ethics in a subject I doubt has ever affected your life.
Strawman. Assuming someone is blind because they don't agree with you, and then giving a preposterous hypothetical that because someone doesn't live in the line of fire that they can't have a rational perspective on the issues at hand. Pathetic.
Torture is needed at times, it is not preferred, its results are dubious at best, I do not become my enemy because I use tactics to save my people, that is a bullshit leftist ideologies that does nothing but weaken the military. If torturing 20 people will save 20 000 than it is a small
Strawman. Torture is not a left vs. right issue, it's a right vs. wrong issue. Our nation has historically viewed torture as a SERIOUS crime, and it should go on being viewed as such. Also fail to see how torturing people aids the military. Indeed, the repercussions of such debacles as Abu Ghraib and this example, are of a diabolical nature. We lose the respect of allies, and even the common civilian in other nations may begin to unfairly look at our servicemen as supportive of such travesties.
Being strong is standing up for your values. It is not only fair and just, it is ideal to crush your enemies with extreme prejudice, if war is the answer. If a criminal or terrorist has perpetrated crimes which deserve death, execute him swiftly. But I will never yield to accepting torture as an acceptable behavior on behalf of me or my country. And please stop with the strawman of 'torture XX, save XXXX', as it assumes MUCH.
Your values are so strong that you don't mind sending someone to another country to be tortured. You are a hypocrite.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Rendition is a tricky area, which I don't think is ideal. This particular case is one where I would support it, as it seems pretty clear that he is guilty, but our case is tainted because of our usage of torture.
Let me make this clear :
What should happen in a case like #20, is that he is tried by a lawful court, be it military or civilian, of the serious crimes he has committed. Evidence is given, sentencing is handed down, and he is executed cleanly and swiftly.
In this rare case where someone totally dropped the ball, and he is in legal limbo, I have pretty much no qualms handing him over to a country that wants to deal with him. I didn't specifically say it was okay to torture him in a different country, but I have less of an issue with that, as it doesn't directly stain our policy to not torture. Much more ideal would be a quick finding of guilty, followed by hanging or firing squad, whatever.
For you to manipulate things into a way that makes me 'condone' torture, that's a pretty big stretch. I'm for justice, and if justice can't be served here, punt him to someone that can legally take care of him because we bungled it.
What do you want me to say? I never said anything against the Army personnel I was discussing those in coffee shops who impose a moral view on the world, certainly not people serving in the Army. Reagen was an awesome president who had some views I disagree with, torture being one of them I think he made a very inspiring quote against it, I still support it. I didn't say you were blind, I said the fact you never had to deal with the actual issues you are arguing makes you blind on the subject from any real world view and not just a moral one.
Torture can be a right vs left issue, you make it into a right vs wrong one even though you support torture under certain circumstances, as do most people. I would say most leftists would not agree with sending him to Saudi Arabia like you do, which makes it a right vs left.
You are still a hypocrite though for supporting torture yet condoning it at the same time.
Except we both know what would happen if he went to Saudi Arabia. Hell you even stated "They don't take kindly to his type over there". They would torture him to hell to get information out of him than kill him behind the prison, which is fine as long as America doesn't do it?
Alright, I'll agree with that, I suppose the world needs a beacon of light somewhere. I agree that America should not torture but she should have no qualms giving over the people who need to talk to countries with less ethics.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Quote the post where I explicitly supported torture. You won't find it. I would expect that mr 20 would get executed for crimes, swiftly and cleanly. If he happens to be tortured, that's regrettable in moral terms, but it's not done under the flag of these United States, and I DO have significantly less problem with that. The whole issue could have been avoided in the first place by following our own laws to the letter so that he could be dealt with in our own system harshly but fairly.
As someone very familiar with politics I understand the concept of "saying something without saying it". As I said, we both agree that the US should not tarnish its ethics by torturing and it is better to hand people over to less ethical states for treatment that better suits the crime.
That better?
I nominate you to be the next waterboard crash test dummy. Then, you can tell us how much you appreciate being subjected to wimpy torture and crimes against humanity.
You've already got the dummy part down so it should be easy.
George W. Bush and his gang of traitors, torturers, murderers, war criminals and war profiteers should all be tried and convicted for their crimes and all expenses paid lifetime vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes on the exciting waterboard ride.
It isn't torture. They said so, themselves, and we can believe them... right? :roll:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter