Magiver also just pulled out, as God is my witness, a “torture is okay because… Flight 93!” Literally; a completely irrelevant reference to Flight 93 and its heroic passengers. I mean, we’re getting into genuine “I want to join the SA” territory here.
True, but it was only to support a premise of liberal hypocrisy and panty-wadding. Bad enough that liberals are hypocritical but they are also effeminate.
This, considering the false notion that the British invented the concentration camp in the Boer War seems to always come up in relation to the Nazis in WW2. The term concentration camp is often itself used incorrectly to refer to the extermination camps; the Konzentrationslager were set up in 1933 to hold, torture, and very occasionally kill political prisoners. Vernichtungslager or Todeslager were set up in 1942 for the sole purpose of committing mass murder on a truly horrific scale.
Always sounds more sincere in German, doesn’t it? “Detention center” and “rendition” just don’t have the same gritty bite, they sound like a fairly strict Holiday Inn.
Because they were more successful at covering it up than the current American government.
The US government revealed all this because they were forced to.
FTR, some British still like it insist it wasn’t torture.
Andrew Sullivan actually mentioned this a few years ago as “proof” that the British didn’t torture and also insisted that members of the IRA were never “tortured” they were merely “treated inhumanely”.
He was, is, and always will be a complete idiot.
None of that of course excuses what the US did.
That said, I’ll agree a more appropriate comparison would be the French during the Algerian War for Independence who openly admitted to what they did and insisted that electrocuting people with car batteries wasn’t “torture” and wen to the point of “shocking” themselves to prove it.
Did I write “apprehended in the USA”?
Searching for loopholes, are you? I bet nobody would have mentioned loopholes in the essentially unanimous answer I would have gotten back then.
And this answers my comment about the USA how, exactly?
Ho! More loopholes! I’m so surprised.
(and a loophole made up just for the circumstance, to boot. In case you wouldn’t know, there was no such thing as an “ennemy combatant” until the Bush administration created the concept. It has been made up so that these people would benefit neither from the guarantees granted to regular prisonners, nor from the guarantees granted to prisoners of war. In other word, the USA stated : these people won’t get any protection of any kind…and we’ll call them…hmmm…let’s say “ennemy combatants”)
Personnally, I’m a law abiding citizen. I don’t steal except from people I determined are “undeservingly wealthy”. As you can see, I’m not a thief, but what I call a “social corrector”.
Torture isn’t wrong because it doesn’t work. Torture is wrong because it’s torture. It’s wrong even if it does work.
If you make the argument that torture is only wrong because it doesn’t work, then you’re handing the argument over to the torturers. You’re telling them the only thing they’re doing wrong is not torturing people effectively. If they figure out the right way to torture people, it’ll be okay.
And that’s wrong. Even if torture produced clear and factual information, it would still be wrong. Even if torture is only used against criminals and terrorists, it would still be wrong. There’s no such thing as good torture and bad torture.
Well said.
The correct answer to the ticking time bomb scenario is to throw the switch and send the out of control trolley car into it, thus ridding the world of two bullshit hypotheticals. Bonus points if a fat Supreme Court Justice is on the trolley tracks as well.
There is absolutely nothing that you can say would not be a reasonable choice, if someone can fine tune the hypothetical enough. I can come up with a hypothetical that will force you to rape your parents and eat your children. There is no value in inventing such hypotheticals and forcing people to answer them. Their very unreality destroys their utility. In the case of real torture, you cannot know what you do not know.
I think this is well said. So I should say it this way: I am unaware of any use of torture in all human history which was justified.
We might, maybe, possibly, be able to come up with an example that we can justify, in hindsight. But we don’t live life in hindsight, so we can’t justify it with information we have at the time the torture would start.
In other words, I completely agree.
Those would be the Unknown Unknowns.
No it isn’t.
This is the ticking bomb scenario and it is ridiculous on it’s face. It allows you to assume the very things that you cannot assume.
You cannot assume he planted it or that he planted it in a particular place. If someone with* direct knowledge* of this told you this, then that person knows where it is also. This is basic logic. The best you can have is someone who thinks this guy has one and planted it in a particular city and told you about it. The worst you can have is someone who is feeding you bullshit, either to throw you off or punish an enemy. Or both. (maybe because he was tortured as well?)
You can have pretty decent evidence that a particular guy planted a device, and that he planted it somewhere. But you cannot know this. There is ALWAYS the very real possibility that the guy you are about to torture doesn’t know what you want to know.
Torture makes more sense as a punitive feature of a public execution way before it makes sense as a way of gaining information from ones enemies, right? I am no depraved torturer, but all that stuff about shitty intel makes natural sense I feel. I’d probably tell the bastards any old irrelevant thing to make it stop - especially as in such a heightened mood of terror I’d be certain such monsters would kill me as soon as the torture worked and I became useless. So I’d tell them any old bullshit to make it stop in the interim. It seems the histories show that the answers you get are hit and miss and because of that, so is the guilt of the next round of victims. In addition, it seems more probable that more actual enemies will be generated as they learn about your inaccurate program of whatever crock of shit name you call it that does the thing with broken legs and anal rape.
And since this is all sans a courtroom or trial, it only seems fair that a similar burden be put upon those who actually do. So whats the word from some of the advocators here on mental disfigurement, sexual assault, broken legs, waterboarding, the works… being put upon felons convicted in the united states as punishment, huh? Since it should follow that those convicted of actual crimes have exceeded the same criteria being applied on citizens abroad.
What is nonsense? Where does that link say the torture of the SS officers was legal? Why do you think it was kept secret under the OSA? My claim was that torture hasn’t been legal for 400 years, not that the British government has never employed the practice itself.
Incidentally, did you read that Daily Mail article before posting it? The Daily Mail is like Fox News on steroids and is the one paper most in Britain most likely to side with the torture of SS officers, yet even the article you linked to has a headline decrying how shameful the practice was! What relevance, then, does it have in a thread pitting people who are defending torturers?