Can we 'Justify' Torture?

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If I went stark raving mad and was planning a mass murder, I would hope that someone would torture me to me to prevent me from carrying it out, if it came to that.

There are a few problems with this thought. First and foremost, you never KNOW that someone IS planning something. You can be pretty sure, but that doesn't really cut it when you're going to torture someone. Second, as others have mentioned, there is no realistic expectation of extracting accurate information from someone using torture. Third, the criteria that may be applied to allow torture are always arbitrary. Hypothetically, they could be applied to anyone, including you, even if only by mistake. Finally, treating someone using torture is never approrpriate, even if they are guilty. There are rules against cruel and unusual punishment, and I'm guessing torture is exactly why this was included in the Constitution.

In the end, torturing someone puts you at their level, if not well beneath it.

:shocked: I agree. :shocked:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If I went stark raving mad and was planning a mass murder, I would hope that someone would torture me to me to prevent me from carrying it out, if it came to that.

Well, you qualify under the first half of that. Why don't we start torturing now. Call it a pre-emptive strike.

 

[BBond]

?Brutalization doesn?t work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul.?

 

[lozina]

There's also this brief article on the question: does torture work?

Anyone who is right now saying they support torture, especially merely as "punishment" aka "revenge" needs to realize they are also supporting torture against our troops. You must understand while relative to your perspective you may consider it justifiable to torture some evil man who has been demonized in our media, but there will likewise be people on the other side, with an opposite perspective thinking our troops who would be responsible for torturing this man who happens to be so revered in their society or even blood related to them should be tortured as revenge, perhaps initiating a cycle.

Then what happens to our values? The distinct line separating our noble, civilized society from the barbaric acts of our so-called terrorist enemies becomes blurred. Who wins from that? Certainly not us... maybe these ideas once they get accepted abroad will get adopted at home once the war is over. Some wiseguy will come around with his hypothetical situation: "ok, we have a criminal in custody who we know has information on an underground ring of pedophile predadtors- are we going to let these children suffer or are we going to force this information out of this criminal!?" or whatever...

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Riprorin


I have info that would prevent the mass murder and all attempts to get the info out of me have failed. Torture is the last remaining option. I say go for it.

Hey Rip, did you forget to ask yourslf WWJD?

 

[Deptacon]

Originally posted by: BBond
?Brutalization doesn?t work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul.?

The new yorker HAHAHAHA some Bs liberal elitest publication...please BBond..... your making me laugh...

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: BBond
?Brutalization doesn?t work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul.?

The new yorker HAHAHAHA some Bs liberal elitest publication...please BBond..... your making me laugh...

Don't be stupid. Read the article. Read about the man who made the quote I linked from the article.

People with years of experience in interogation know torture doesn't produce anything but garbage information. You can make anyone say anything you want them to if you apply enough pain over a long enough period.

That's one of the reasons why Bush is in the bind he's in, forced to keep people locked up around the world in U.S. SANCTIONED GULAGS, using torture to obtain garbage intel (which Bush seems to have a predisposition for as long as the garbage intel supports his warped agenda) because NONE OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THEM BY TORTURE IS ADMISSABLE AND THE U.S. CAN'T VERY WELL RELEASE THEM ALL TO TELL THEIR STORIES NOW -- CAN WE???

That's why the man said, "Besides, you lose your soul."

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: BBond
?Brutalization doesn?t work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul.?

The new yorker HAHAHAHA some Bs liberal elitest publication...please BBond..... your making me laugh...

Don't be stupid. Read the article. Read about the man who made the quote I linked from the article.

People with years of experience in interogation know torture doesn't produce anything but garbage information. You can make anyone say anything you want them to if you apply enough pain over a long enough period.

That's one of the reasons why Bush is in the bind he's in, forced to keep people locked up around the world in U.S. SANCTIONED GULAGS, using torture to obtain garbage intel (which Bush seems to have a predisposition for as long as the garbage intel supports his warped agenda) because NONE OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THEM BY TORTURE IS ADMISSABLE AND THE U.S. CAN'T VERY WELL RELEASE THEM ALL TO TELL THEIR STORIES NOW -- CAN WE???

That's why the man said, "Besides, you lose your soul."

Come on, bbond. Don't you know ex-FBI agents that have sons that were Army Rangers serving in Afghanistan are the core of the leftist mindset?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Deptacon

Originally posted by: BBond
?Brutalization doesn?t work. We know that. Besides, you lose your soul.?

The new yorker HAHAHAHA some Bs liberal elitest publication...please BBond..... your making me laugh...

Don't be stupid. Read the article. Read about the man who made the quote I linked from the article.

People with years of experience in interogation know torture doesn't produce anything but garbage information. You can make anyone say anything you want them to if you apply enough pain over a long enough period.

That's one of the reasons why Bush is in the bind he's in, forced to keep people locked up around the world in U.S. SANCTIONED GULAGS, using torture to obtain garbage intel (which Bush seems to have a predisposition for as long as the garbage intel supports his warped agenda) because NONE OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THEM BY TORTURE IS ADMISSABLE AND THE U.S. CAN'T VERY WELL RELEASE THEM ALL TO TELL THEIR STORIES NOW -- CAN WE???

That's why the man said, "Besides, you lose your soul."

Come on, bbond. Don't you know ex-FBI agents that have sons that were Army Rangers serving in Afghanistan are the core of the leftist mindset?

Somehow I seem to have missed that development, Conjur.

 

[StageLeft]

Mostly no, but in cases of the one in the first post, then yes a professional should "work him over". No time for dithering.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: conjur
Come on, bbond. Don't you know ex-FBI agents that have sons that were Army Rangers serving in Afghanistan are the core of the leftist mindset?

Somehow I seem to have missed that development, Conjur.

You need to drink more

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: glenn1
what the proper boundaries of government are.

The people will make this decision ( regarding torture and defining it)...

Actually, the "people" (in the way you are defining them) will not decide. If the "people" were permitted to make decisions like this, slavery would exist (of non-white ethnic groups and women), the majority of the population would live in dire poverty and widespread famine, and anarchy would reign.

That's why decisions are made by representatives of the people, who don't (usually) make knee-jerk reactions, are knowledgeable of our political system, and keep in mind the moral standpoint our country is purported to prescribe to.

As far as torture is concerned... I might do it to a person. But it's not something that is appropriate for an institution (government) that is meant to represent a people to do.

 

[Infohawk]

Sounds like a lot of you have views very similar to that of terrorists in that the ends justify the means...

 

[Tab]

Since a lot of us, are agaisnt the use of torture and other question "methods" that bush adiminstration is using to keep prisoners. If anyone has any links post them, I am at school right now.

Under Canda's laws Bush should have been arrested by Canada for "War Crimes". Too bad they didn't go through with it.

Would you all agree he should be charged? I am particularly interested in Cyclo's opinion on this.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Since a lot of us, are agaisnt the use of torture and other question "methods" that bush adiminstration is using to keep prisoners. If anyone has any links post them, I am at school right now.

Under Canda's laws Bush should have been arrested by Canada for "War Crimes". Too bad they didn't go through with it.

Would you all agree he should be charged? I am particularly interested in Cyclo's opinion on this.

I'm not terribly familiar with the Geneva Conventions, but last time I read them I was pretty shocked at just what was actually allowed under them. If someone is a war criminal by these standards, I would be most pleased if they were arrested. If Bush is a war criminal, please arrest him. I can only hope whoever replaces him doesn't suck as bad.

Not sure if you were expecting me to stick up for him or what. I really don't like him. Unfortunately, I can't subscribe to the 'anyone but' train of thought, so I had to vote for him again.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Tabb
Since a lot of us, are agaisnt the use of torture and other question "methods" that bush adiminstration is using to keep prisoners. If anyone has any links post them, I am at school right now.

Under Canda's laws Bush should have been arrested by Canada for "War Crimes". Too bad they didn't go through with it.

Would you all agree he should be charged? I am particularly interested in Cyclo's opinion on this.

Here is a story from the Guardian that mentions Guantanamo as one of the facilities the Bush administration uses for torture, and also mentions ships in the Indian Ocean.

Secret world of US jails

Two were transported from Gambia to Guantanamo Bay - where they remain today - without any legal process. In the other incident, two Turks, a Saudi, a Kenyan and a Sudanese man were arrested in Malawi in June 2003 on suspicion of funding terrorist networks. Though freed by local courts, the men were handed over to the CIA and held for several months. Campaigners say these incidents are 'the tip of an iceberg'.

Few escape the ghost network of detention facilities, which range from massive prison camps such as that at Guantanamo Bay to naval vessels in the Indian Ocean, so accounts of life inside the new gulag are rare.

Torture is wrong especially when conducted by a nation which projects its power in the name of *freedom and democracy*.

I am at a complete loss to understand HOW U.S. CITIZENS CANNOT COMPREHEND THIS BASIC FACT.

 

[maluckey]

BBond

There is more than Black or White in this world. I used to think just like you. Things changed after eight years in the military, two wars, eight years of Federal Law Enforcement, a marriage, two kids and a whole lot of living. I see Gray things for what they are.....real life.

How nice for you that you live in a chocolate covered dreamland where all the bad guys are cooperative, and nothing bad ever befalls the nice guys. A simple coofee klatch with the bad guy and he happily gives up all the information (and a really good recipe for pot-roast as well).

The real world has gray areas that most hope to never have to use. They exist, and it pays to have people around that can understand those areas. Otherwise, this world would be far more messed up than is already is. GO back to dreamland where nobody wishes anyone harm, and label the bad guys as misunderstood, and make excuses for the murderers and thieves, while blaming soceity for everything bad, and your own example for all the good. How nice it must all be for you.

Kill the Rose Colored Glasses BBond and join the world for a day. It's not much like you think that it is.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Riprorin
If I went stark raving mad and was planning a mass murder, I would hope that someone would torture me to me to prevent me from carrying it out, if it came to that.

There are a few problems with this thought. First and foremost, you never KNOW that someone IS planning something. You can be pretty sure, but that doesn't really cut it when you're going to torture someone. Second, as others have mentioned, there is no realistic expectation of extracting accurate information from someone using torture. Third, the criteria that may be applied to allow torture are always arbitrary. Hypothetically, they could be applied to anyone, including you, even if only by mistake. Finally, treating someone using torture is never approrpriate, even if they are guilty. There are rules against cruel and unusual punishment, and I'm guessing torture is exactly why this was included in the Constitution.

In the end, torturing someone puts you at their level, if not well beneath it.

Let's hypothetically say that you do know.

If it came down to torturing someone to get information versus the death of millions of people, do you torture or do you let millions of people die?

I torture.

To suggest that torture is sometimes an appropriate option doesn't mean that it should be a common practice.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Define "torture". Just want to make sure we're on the same page.

This is exactly the "trick" your favorite Administration tried: Get the Justice department to define torture as something so extreme that almost any cruel act is less extreme and is therefore "not torture", and is okay. So the Adminstration can then say, "We are opposed to torture", yet perpetrate all kinds of horrible acts on prisoners.

 

[Riprorin]

It's not a "trick". It's obviously important to define the terms that that you use. You learn that in Philosophy 101. It's caled "semantics".

 

[Gaard]

UN: CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Does anyone here have a differing take on what torture is?

 

[Riprorin]

How is "severe" defined?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: maluckey
BBond

There is more than Black or White in this world. I used to think just like you. Things changed after eight years in the military, two wars, eight years of Federal Law Enforcement, a marriage, two kids and a whole lot of living. I see Gray things for what they are.....real life.

How nice for you that you live in a chocolate covered dreamland where all the bad guys are cooperative, and nothing bad ever befalls the nice guys. A simple coofee klatch with the bad guy and he happily gives up all the information (and a really good recipe for pot-roast as well).

The real world has gray areas that most hope to never have to use. They exist, and it pays to have people around that can understand those areas. Otherwise, this world would be far more messed up than is already is. GO back to dreamland where nobody wishes anyone harm, and label the bad guys as misunderstood, and make excuses for the murderers and thieves, while blaming soceity for everything bad, and your own example for all the good. How nice it must all be for you.

Kill the Rose Colored Glasses BBond and join the world for a day. It's not much like you think that it is.

Maluckey;

I'm not the guy with the black and white view of the world. That would be George W. Bush.

 

[OokiiNeko]

I see Gray things for what they are.....real life.

No, gray things are bullsh!t excuses for people who want to not fix the problem, not have accountability, reap the rewards for others work.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
How is "severe" defined?

Well, your favorite Administration tried to define "severe" as being a level of pain commensurate with organ failure or incipient death. Anything less "severe" than that was therefore not torture, and was (upon Presidential directive) acceptable.

Kind of renders a statement such as "We are opposed to 'torture'" pretty absurd.

Of course, the Justice department memo went on to claim that the President wasn't bound even by the US Consitution when war was being waged. Thus (said the memo) the President could legally order torture. Even the Justice department lawyer who came up with this nonsense acknowledged (in the Washington Post article examining the whole memo fiasco) that this interpretation or Presidential power was "not mainstream" (his words). When asked just HOW "non-mainstream" this interpretation was, the lawyer said (to paraphrase), "If you polled 1000 Constitutional scholars on this matter, you might find 6 or 7 that agreed with the memo."

.6% is more like "fringe" than "non-mainstream".