Yes, I do in fact understand what scare quotes are and yes, I do disagree with you. I consider decapitation to require somewhat more description than “got hurt.” I type your name because it seems common politeness to do so. No big deal either way.
Regards
Testy
By that logic, those who support torture should start by torturing themselves.
Because a society that condones torture is a society where there is no freedom, or soon won’t be. You cannot torture someone without being a monster, and a society that condones torture is run by or composed of monsters.
What, you also expect us to lay out the underpinnings of our entire ethical framework? “Don’t hurt people” isn’t an irrational moral stance. Additional ideas like “if you hurt them, their friends will hurt you”, “You’ll become desensitised to the pain of others”, “you might be hurting the wrong person” just add to the rationality of it all.
In GD? The insulting tone, of course. Nitpicking is par for the course. The Whine is free. :rolleyes:
Unlike your pro terror position which amounts to “They’re the bad guys; they deserve to be tortured (even though no evidence has been provided that indicates that torture even works at any object other than inflicting pain.”
Even Testy, who seems pretty desperate to believe that torture can work in some limited number of situations has not actually been able to provide an example of it working–and particularly not an example where torture worked while a different method of interrogation would have failed.
If torture actually worked, then there would be testimony from actual intelligence officers detailing where it worked while all we currently have are some vague assurances from amateurs (who have already demonstrated their incompetence) that we need to trust them that it is necessary.
Instead, we have seen testimony from a number of intelligence professionals that torture does not work.
Well, that description was for you to fill in, not me. You said something like “lost in premeditated ways”. I could have said “got murdered”, but I didn’t know how they were lost, who they were or anything. I know more now, and I assure you, I’m not interested in making light of their deaths. I’m OK with whatever term you want to use.
I notice you haven’t disagreed with the scared part.
No biggie, it just seems repetitious - thought I’d save you the effort when it’s already on the quote.
So, your ethical stance, in the framework of an argument that has a great deal to do with ethics, is unquestionable? Hardly seems fair. It would be more honest to tell us why you view torture as an absolute non-starter (which you have…meant to the participants at large).
I can tell the whines are free. Simple supply and demand dictates the price of that.
-Cem
By “human misery” I mean humanity as a whole. Terrorists want a world where people live in fear, where death is always a possibility. People like that don’t deserve the niceties of Western civilization, because if they had their way there wouldn’t be any.
tomndebb
No, Tom. I am not desperate to believe anything at all. I’ve seen something work, no belief is required. I also believe I gave you an example of it working. Possibly I was unclear. As far as whether there was a better way to get the information, I don’t have anything to base an opinion on.
Also, you never answered my question a few exchanges back. If someone plops you into a chair and tells you they’re going to torture you unless you rat-out your country, bowling league, or some other thing you consider important, what will you do?
I would suggest that you, just like anyone else, are going to give-up the info. It isn’t a matter of whether, it’s a matter of when.
Regards
Testy
I’ve never said “unquestionable”, watch the straw. I said rational, meaning thought out. The notion that hurting people is bad is axiomatic to my morality, sure, but feel free to challenge it.
Look.
If the prosecutor knows someone is guilty, what’s wrong with forcing them to testify against themselves?
If cops suspect someone of a crime, why not just let the cops search them or their house right then and there? What’s the use of forcing the cops to jump through bureacratic hoops like warrants?
If someone is obviously guilty of a crime, why should be provide them with a defense attorney at public expense? It’s a waste of resources…the guy is obviously guilty, he’s going to be found guilty, you know it, I know it, he knows it, everyone knows it, so why go through the charade of a trial?
If someone criticizes the war effort, lowers the morale of our soldiers, won’t that potentially cost lives? What’s more important, free speech or the lives of our soldiers?
If the cops know someone is guilty of murder, what’s wrong with them just arresting him and putting a bullet in his brain? He’s a murderer. He doesn’t deserve any better. A trial will just drag things out, and a judge will pronounce a sentence, and he’ll end up with a lethal injection anyway, only after we’ve wasted 10 years and a pile of money on lawyers and judges and prisons. Just let the cops shoot the guy, if they’re sure he’s a murderer.
Anybody on the pro-torture side want to disagree with any of the above?
Set aside whether torture provides reliable information under some circumstances. Set aside whether torture is understandable under certain circumstances. Set aside whether the victims of torture deserve it or not.
Can’t you see that we don’t trust cops and soldiers to torture prisoners for the same reason we don’t trust cops and soldiers to summarily execute prisoners?
Or are you in favor of withdrawing from the Geneva Convention? Are you in favor of repealing the Constitution? Or is it just that you’re in favor of winking at violations of the Geneva Convention and the Constituion?
I’ll assume you mean “not hurting people”.
If you aver that you have rationalized the thought experiment and at least allowed for debate within the subject’s framework, I’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t see anywhere on the thread where you’ve allowed for any opinion that didn’t agree with yours. Not much of a debate.
-Cem
First of all, the niceties of Western civilization, as I understand them, do not include getting pulled off the street and being sent to some black prison to get tortured. Yet that’s what we’re doing. It happened in Argentina to “state enemies” - do you think the country as a whole decreased in fear?
Perhaps you’d deign to have a trial first, to prove that these people are terrorists. If so, the information value kind of goes away, and all that’s left is cruel and unusual punishment. It’s not like making prisoners suffer hasn’t been tried before - it didn’t seem to decrease the crime rate in Shakespeare’s day. Plus, why just do it to terrorists. The DC snipers caused a lot of misery - should we torture them along with the terrorists? How about some of the asshole drivers on the freeway I use for work?
Or just maybe the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they outlawed this.
I’ll say it again, since you didn’t seem to notice the first time I said it.
I stipulate that terrorists deserve to be tortured.
But I deserve to live in a country where I don’t have to live in fear that the cops are going to legally torture me or my family or my friends or my neighbors or my co-workers, or random people walking down the street.
So we have a conflict of rights. I deserve to live in a torture-free society, terrorists deserve to be tortured. Which is more important? Would you rather live in an authoritarian dictatorship as long as terrorists get tortured as they deserve, or would you rather live in a liberal democracy even if it meant that terrorists couldn’t be tortured as they deserve?
Thank you Comrade Stalin. 
Isn’t it odd that some of the same people who used to rail against the Commies - and for good reason - now want to do stuff that would meet with their approval?
Why am I not surprised.
Why? You’ve saved lives, right? And that’s why we need torture: to save lives.
Now, you might object that releasing that car-bomber endangers more lives, but you’d be wrong about that. Because car-bombers don’t kill people just for fun, they do it to advance a political agenda. But, since your goal is to save lives, you’re going to give in to every demand they make. So there’ll be no need for them to kill people. You’re going to do anything they want.
Now, think hard: why is this stupid? Think really hard. At what point does “saving lives” stop being your most important goal, and why? Practically speaking, if they are capable of threatening you, then why shouldn’t you obey them? What difference does it make?
Is there any reason why you shouldn’t just live the way the terrorists want you to? Is there any meaningful difference between the society you want and the society they want?
What do you think you are defending?
Wow, you know the words “idealistic” AND “morals.” That is impressive. Where did you hear about those concepts?
AFAIK, there’s a “reasonable cause” section of the law which allows them to do just that if given justification (bag of Meth on the counter, etc.). The warrant is another level of review at the judicial level.
Even if he’s guilty, the lawyer can advise during sentencing, look for legal malfesance, etc.
There’s a lack of causation again. I don’t know if those three link together too well. There’s an interesting question buried in there, and your answer would probably depend on your location…Puget Sound or Afghanistan/Iraq.
A lot of assumptions in that statement. However, I agree with reducing appeal timeframes and accelerating the end of the process, absent compelling evidence to the contrary (I’m reminded of the Death Row inmates that have been released from Illinois).
Lemur866, my main understanding of this debate is that we’re in a warfare situation for the purposes of our discussion. As such, you’re in a life/death decision matrix. If the downside of a poor decision is death (pretty final), then I would guess that most ways of getting information to enhance decision-making would be allowable.
I also believe that, if your wartime opponent previously disobeyed the Geneva Conventions, you’re not required to follow them (I think I read that in one of your earlier links).
-Cem
I can’t decide if this is a whoosh or a bizarre statement of naivite. Are you implying that, because someone has the ability to threaten us, that we should acquience to everything they request? Are you implying that a society driven by Shari’a law is common to my ideal society? I’m not even going to touch your grossly broad statement that “car bombers do it to advance a political agenda”…please. If you were aiming for sarcasm, it didn’t land.
Sigh…I also know the words “debate” and “theoretical”. If you’re searching for some web-board enemy for the purposes of self-aggrandizement, look elsewhere. I’m just playing by the rule of debate.
-Cem
Well, if living under Sharia law will save lives, then you institute Sharia law. It will save lives, and that’s the most important thing, right?
If torture will save lives, you torture. If converting to Islam will save lives, you convert to Islam. If proclaiming Osama bin Ladin Caliph of a united World Islamic state will save lives, you proclaim Osama Caliph. Why is that so hard to understand?
Or do your pie-in-the-sky idealistic morals cause you to have an objection to proclaiming Osama Caliph? Huh. Maybe you suspect that putting Osama in charge won’t actually save lives in the long run? Huh.
No, you are. You imply that we should do whatever is necessary to save lives, even if it means abandoning our standards of civilization.
I couldn’t say, since I don’t know what you envision as an ideal society, other than that it has room for torture. If Shari’a law also permits that, then I guess you have that in common.
Okay, what IS the motivation for car bombers then? Do you think it’s an extreme sport?
Uh huh. Playing by the rule of debate must make living very simple. If you don’t have to think something out, it saves brain cells.
That statement describes those who support torture at least as well. Nor are “terrorists” all, or even most, especially interested in any of that. Most are more interested in the liberation of Whateverland, the freedom of Whoever, or the imposition of Goofism as the law of the land. You are describing us, with our fondness for torture and conquest, more than you describe the terrorists.
And if torture is justifable for the greater good, why isn’t terrorism ? And if we run around torturing people, there are no “niceties of Western civilization”.
:rolleyes: I rather think you know what he/she is saying, but won’t admit it. You and your fellow torture apologists keep saying that anything is justifiable to save lives, therefore torture should be allowed. Terrifel is simply pointing out that if saving lives is all that matters, why not just give in ?