Thing about Scalia is, he feels compelled to insult the intelligence of people who disagree with him. Any drunken sophomore in a 3am beer and pizza fueled argument can find the extreme exemption and claim that it renders the principle moot. It is a variation on the theological question of the the creation of a burrito that God Almighty dare not consume, or cannot. It is little more than a semantic dodge.
And he knows that. He knows that we know that. And does it anyway, he delights in sticking his thumb in the collective eye of progressives and seldom, if ever, passes up an opportunity.
Does he share our American aspirations, our unfounded, “self-evident” faith in universal human rights? I will cheerfully admit that we have no proof of that assertion, which is why we call it “self-evident”. Is that a dodge, is that an admission that we can’t prove it, that it has no objective foundation of fact? Sure. Why not? We do it anyway. It is a secular faith, we don’t need God to give it to us, we give it to each other. One full set of human rights for each human navel.
He knows this as well as we do, he insults our intelligence and betrays his own. Fuck him, and the horse upon in which he rode.
The problem with this is that it sounds a lot like religious people discussing the book of Revelation and never realizing that the devil already knows the contents of the book and what to not do.
Even the Joker in the recent Batman movie knew that torture was coming and knew how to play the tortures too, in the real world there is evidence that a lot of the intelligence we got from torture was used to justify the Iraq invasion as a few sources under torture reported on Al-qaeda cooperating and getting training from Saddam. It was false information that was broadcasted by Colin Powell in the now infamous presentation to the UN that also convinced many Americans to invade and to then defuse those “ticking” WMDs in Iraq.
I do think that Osama is still laughing at the USA from beyond the grave.
If there is a time limit, implied, at least, by “vital to the survival of innocents” then I just have to endure the torture, so I can run out the clock by lying to you.
If there isn’t a time limit then there’s no real “survival of innocents” at stake and all the torture gets you, at best, is not having to search. No where near sufficient to justify torture.
There’s a nuclear bomb hidden somewhere in LA. All the terrorist needs to do is hold out until it detonates, and he wins. Torture doesn’t even work when you’ve got an open-ended schedule to work with, let alone in the ticking time bomb scenario.
It’s like saying “Sure, water divination doesn’t always work, but what if you’re dying of thirst in the deserts? Isn’t it worth a shot?” No, it’s not, and you’re stupid if you think it is.
Well, then my problem is with the factual viability of torture as an extraction mechanism. Assuming that it would work, I think this would be morally acceptable. It doesn’t? Well then there’s no fucking reason to do it. Period. It’d be morally abhorrent in the situations the US used it in even if it worked.
Also, side note - Magiver may be functionally retarded. That, and he has no idea what morality is or how it works. Jesus christ. “We did it to our own troops!” Yes, as part of a controlled training exercise, you colossal fuckwit! That’s not even close to the same thing!
We are a nation of torturers. Wouldn’t the Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison be proud? Never mind that torturing is Satanic, never mind that it doesn’t work, never mind that it ruins our morality and never mind that it discredits us around the world. At least it satisfies the angry monster that makes up the character of our most venal elected officials.
Not going to happen. Unrealistic scenarios are a waste of time thinking about. If terrorists manage to get a bomb in LA, they are going to set it off. It isn’t going to be by a lone nut, it’s going to be a well funded team that isn’t going to care if you torture one of their guys. What they’d likely do is set it off as soon as they figure out that one of their guys was captured. Or even more likely, set it off as soon as it’s in place. Why put it in place and wait around for it to be discovered?
Budget Cadet Player is stipulating a situation where torture is necessary (and sufficient) to extract information that will prevent a nuclear detonation that will kill hundreds of thousands. It’s disingenuous not to engage the hypothetical by imposing arbitrary practical constraints. My moral instinct is that in that specific, highly idealized scenario, the captured terrorist should be tortured. I invite you to argue why not. And if I were the one who had to do it, I would probably puke uncontrollably through it all and would never recover psychologically, and would then turn myself in and expect a one-time presidential pardon. But morally, what is the alternative?
It’s a far cry from this scenario to say that torture ought to be institutionalized and practiced on a regular basis. I believe the legal prohibition on torture should be absolute, FTR.
FWIW I agree. My moral framework is based on making the best choice for the best predictable outcome in a world of crappy choices. In theory, there are circumstances in which I might choose torture as the least horrible choice among terrible choices. In this theoretical world, I would also choose to be harshly punished for making this choice, not because I’d deserve punishment but because the temptation will always, always be for us violent apes to choose torture when there’s a better choice, and punishing me for making the choice would do far more to improve humanity’s lot than to let me go free.
In theory, I might choose torture. It’s very hard to come up with a hypothetical where that’s a reasonable choice for me to make.
You can always find a hypothetical. Absolute principals without exceptions are hen’s teeth. If the only criticism of a worthy principal is that it is not absolute, then that is one hell of a fine principal.
Somebody has to be the Americans, founded in revolution and committed to justice and humanity. If not us, who? If not now, when?
Frankly, terms like “Asshole” and “retarded” are simply incorrect.
What you have here is immoral. People like Terr and magiver aren’t stupid, they’re evil. If a fascist government were to take power, they’re are the people who would volunteer to round up the women and children of undesirable ethnic groups and send them to the camps.
This is a false premise, the conservatives are the ones that are fighting to keep monority babies from being aborted. Evil had no part here, they were simply making a decision based on what they felt was the lesser of two evils.
Evil credits them with a drive and efficacy well beyond their grasp. Hell, stupid is probably giving them credit.
They’re nasty little sub adults who rely on the internet as a medium to say nasty things without getting punched. Pond scum, indeed, but evil…as if they’re that capable.