And yet, just 40 minutes ago, you said “I don’t think that violence can be ever be justified.” Are you sure you have full cognitive capacity?
Very well. Goodbye. Please do not seek any office of responsibility over others.
If you could for one moment seperate morality from practicality then you could comprehend that right and wrong are relative. Honestly, I think that you understand that. I do not think that you are willing to accept it.
By full cognitive capacity you mean agreeing with your personal convictions. In that sense, I am cognitively disabled.
I actively avoid responsibility over others, so your wish is granted.
Well, if we are engaging in an intellectual exercise justifying the use of torture, the one that was used most effectively when the topic first came up is:
Suppose you capture several terrorists whom you know to have planted a WMD in a US city. You don’t know when it will go off or where it is, and your only lead to that information is the terrorists themselves. You have to extract the information from the terrorists as fast as possible to save tens of thousands of people from being killed. The terrorists, of course, will not talk voluntarily. Wouldnt’ this be the case where torture is justified?
I’d say ‘yes’ in this instance, but of course it’s a HIGHLY artificial situation and none of the torture cases we’ve encountered has had any urgency to it. The problem is, governments are like irresponsible teens who want the keys to your car – “I’ll just go down to the store and pick up some milk for you and some cola for me, honest!”, but you know that once you give them approval, they’ll be buying beer with fake IDs and doing wheelies and playing chicken and bashing mailboxes. When it comes to torture government trot out worst case scenarios “We’ll only do it to save cities by being blowed up by nukes, promise!” But as soon as they have permission, they’re out there doing mass sweeps of innocent civilians, making them pose in naked piles, putting fireworks up their butts, chaining them to their cell walls for hours, beating them to death, etc. etc.
The US government, like most governments, cannot be trusted to use torture minimally. It’s just too damn stupid and irresponsible. The notion of whether it works or not is almost moot, because the real issue is the way that it gets used in the real world, and in the real world, it gets used badly, and often.
Evil Captor, you are not living up to your username.
Torture is for the torturers to get off on, and for their enemies still at large to be afraid of. The tortured themselves are just necessary equipment, like the instruments, chairs or tables. Extracting information is a rationalization at best.
How do we know it wasn’t meant just for the enemy at large, but for the folks at home who might not be Supporting The Troops? “Leave us in charge, 'cause when we get home, we’ll be your cops.” :dubious:
TWEEEEEEET!
[ Moderator Mode ]
I do not care whether enitocinnlonahte actually believes his positions or is simply arguing a devil’s advocate position. Everyone will back off on the personal remarks now. Stick to the discussion. If you think a position is immoral, point out the moral deficit of the position. Leave your personal views of the poster expressing those views out of it.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Addressing the actual subject of the thread (something enitocinnlonahte might consider doing at some point), I really can’t think of a reason other than the usual “to obtain urgently needed information that will save untold numbers of lives” excuse. There may be, as some have said, extremely rare occasions where such tactics may be useful, but against that we must weigh a great weight of evidence that shows historically that:
a) torture is an open-ended fishing expedition at least as often as it is directed to a specific objective
b) torture is at least as often employed as a means to punish persons deemed guilty of crimes, without the bother of due process, as it is a sincere effort to extract information
c) torture is at least as often a depraved form of entertainment for the torturers as it is a punishment or source of information
d) (and this is a big one in my book) large numbers of innocents are made to suffer horribly in addition to those who may be harboring useful information, usually without any recourse whatsoever for punishment of the torturers for misapplication of their methods.
Given the above, there is no compelling justification for torture as an interrogation method, and the use of torture as a policy of the US, whether on citizens or foreign nationals, is unacceptable.
These are my beliefs from my extensive reading on the subject, anyway. Accept them or not; I’m at work and I don’t have time to dig up a lengthy list of cites to this effect.
Er, I compose that message before the Mod action, so my apologies if anything steps over the line there. Must remember to refresh before posting…
There’s absolutely nothing in this link, as far as I can tell, answering my question.
Well, you see, if you take a potential terrorist, bind their hands and feet, and throw them in the water one of two things will happen.
Either he’ll float, proving he’s a terrorist, or he’ll drown, proving he’s innocent.
Sounds like a great system to me!
-Joe
Torture someone long enough, and they’ll admit they’re a witch and use magic all the time.
Like it or not, though, the USA was more interested in “sticking it to the fags” than they were in removing a criminal and corrupt administration.
In what way does what you had to say make us look better?
-Joe
Not at all. You’re the one suggesting that it’s okay for a given state to engage in wars of aggression. Iraq didn’t invade the United States and torture its citizens.
While I’m very hesitant to post this for fear of seeming pro-torture, I think saying “torture doesn’t work” is facile.
Torturing someone to extract a confession doesn’t work.
Torturing someone to get them to name unverifiable co-conspirators (who themselves will presumably be tortured) doesn’t work.
But torturing someone to get a verifiable answer to a life-or-death question COULD work.
Here’s my lengthy analysis of it from a few torture threads back.
Torture is wrong, but in the short term probably relatively effective. But in the long term what those that torture seem to forget is that tortured peoples and nations don’t forget.
We are still on the outs in many nations (Iran comes to mind) for either torturing or training torturers.
And? A lot of people seem to think that torture is some fantastic means of getting a person to tell 100% truth. That is ridiculous; the information that the torturer gets is data to act on.
I said nothing about the war in Iraq… but, ya know, Saddam tortured people.
gasp You un-american inhuman monster! No, clearly you are wrong! Yes, clearly… just look how transparent the wrongness is!
Irrelevant, except that this was one of the may excuses for deposing him. He is evil and he sucks because he tortures people. We gotta get rid of him Freedom. Democracy. So now, we are the torturers. Do we get to throw ourselves out of Iraq? It’s a false and ridiculous argument. Torture is inefficient, unreliable, and just wrong. Some things should not need to be explained, except to those who have no moral compasss whatsoever.
A sociopathic organization is not concerned with the long term because morality is a matter of emotion. Nations do not have emotions. The short-term is all that is important.