Well of course! The moral implications of United States government-sanctioned actions don’t apply outside the United States! it’s all so clear now!:rolleyes:
FTR, I wasn’t referring to within US borders. Pardon my imprecise language. I meant, “an institutionalized torture program legitimized and overseen by the US government.” And by “torture,” I mean practices including but not limited to waterboarding and severe sleep deprivation, though obviously this thread has suffered from an inability to agree on terms from the start.
And other experts agree that it did.
We could just use that set of international standards endorsed by that radical DFH, Ronald Reagan.
“Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists who may know details about
future terrorist attacks against the US is never justified?”
25% of Americans agree. 63% do not.
Have you some point you would like to share with the group?
Thank you for finally admitting and acknowledging that the United States had an institutionalized torture program.
Should U.S. ethics and morality be guided by a popularity contest voted on by an uninformed populace? Are polls like this how you decide your morals and values…or do you only bring them up when they support what you already believe?
Depending on the nature of the attack(s), the nature of the torture involved, and the certainty (or lack thereof) of efficacy, sure it could be justified. If I was somehow in the position of stopping a nuclear bomb from going off in Manhattan and incinerating hundreds of thousands of people, and all I had to do was subject a known terrorist in custody to sleep deprivation or waterboarding, and I was somehow certain that it would get him to give up the info, I would feel morally compelled to do it.
That’s a far cry from believing that the government should have a program in place to do this sort of stuff on a regular basis. The ticking time bomb scenario isn’t a good reason for incurring the wide range of unintended consequences that are likely to follow from legitimizing torture.
Frankly I don’t care about efficacy or otherwise. Torture is morally wrong and the ends cannot justify such means. What you actually do is far more relevant than whatever reasons you had for doing it. The methods the CIA used are enough to rank it right down with the NKVD and the Gestapo. And for this reason alone I think the entire organisation is irredeemably corrupt and ought to be disestablished. In a just world its headquarters would be razed, its staff all fired and every last one of the torturers arrested and indicted. Whatever useful functions it may have performed (and I’m sceptical if there’s actually much of these anyway) can be picked up by some other agency or a new one if need be. Maybe the NSA staff can take a break from reading all the world’s email and hunt for terrorists instead for a change.
The CIA’s entire history is stuffed with incompetence, illegality and outright evil. It’s nefarious activities around the world have damaged America’s interests and global reputation for far too long. It’s time to shut the whole rotten thing down.
CIA delenda est
It’s a bit weird seeing people try to insist that water boarding isn’t torture.
Chase Nielsen, one of the Americans captured during the Doolittle raid was water boarded and the men who did it to him were accused of torture and executed.
On another note, can we stop using the term “rectal feeding” and just call it “anal rape”.
You’ve already stated we shouldn’t have done the butt stuff. Does that mean that the agents/contractors who did the butt stuff violated “America’s ideals”, in your view?
And I’m still waiting for your answer about why you draw the line at “real torture”, even if it were more effective.
The ones trying to save their skin, or actual operators in the field?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/interrogation-experts-from-every-branch-of-the-military-and-intelligence-agree-torture-doesnt-produce-useful-information.html
“Mistakes were made”.
Because I do. You know, kinda like your “It’s wrong because I say it’s wrong” arguments.
Because you think it’s morally wrong?
It is wrong to cause permanent injury in the course of extracting information by enhanced interrogation methods. Don’t know about “morally” - I look at it more pragmatically. There is too much abstraction in morality. It is morally wrong to do so many things that people do. Morally, it is wrong to hurt anyone period. Morally, it is wrong to swat your kid on the bottom. Morally, it is wrong to eat beef. To step on an ant. etc.
I don’t understand. How is it pragmatically wrong to use a method of “real torture” if that method is more effective at gaining information?
I also don’t understand the “morally” stuff either – those things can be morally right or wrong depending on the situation, and depending on the moral system.
Relative morality.
It is seriously hard to think of a worse thing to do to our country’s reputation than to torture people. Reagan spoke of a Shining City on a hill, an America that acted as a beacon of democracy around the world. As wrongheaded as that was at a time we were covertly funding the proto-Taliban and the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, it’s difficult to see how this image can be remotely salvaged for at least a generation. We are a beacon, now, but not a beacon of democracy.
Since you’re clearly unwilling to engage on your personal definitions of torture, maybe you can answer this: Why is it “pragmatically” wrong to cause permanent injury?