Has it occured to anyone else? If it becomes widely known amongst our enemies, real and potential, that we are likely to torture for information…doesn’t that dramaticly increase the likelihood that said enemy will fight to the death rather than surrender? Isn’t it obvious that a man who can reasonably expect decent treatment at the hands of his captors is more likely to surrender?
How many of our soldiers lives are thereby put at risk?
[QUOTE=El_Kabong]
Also, since you have apparently read my post I will ask again: how many innocent persons tortured would you find acceptable to assuage your paranoia about terrorists coming to explode dirty bombs in your neighborhood? Until you acknowledge this point, I really don’t think our debate can proceed.
[/QUOTE]
Do you really think the idea of a dirty bomb being used is paranoia?
I happen to think the idea is much more likely than of huge numbers of innocent people being tortured.
Let’s try this…Five terrorists are captured in a house. Three of them know something that needs to be revealed. All five are waterboarded. Are the two that knew nothing “innocent”? Or are they reaping the rewards of their association and behavior? Maybe one of them is just a suicide-bomber recruit. How innocent is he?
We can play hypothetical tennis all day long. Do I support torturing innocent people? No. Is it possible someone will be waterboarded because they are captured in a scenario like I just put forth? Of course. Is it your assertion that we give up the opportunity to extract life-saving information because we don’t want to be mean to someone who is committed to killing as many of us as possible?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Has it occured to anyone else? If it becomes widely known amongst our enemies, real and potential, that we are likely to torture for information…doesn’t that dramaticly increase the likelihood that said enemy will fight to the death rather than surrender? Isn’t it obvious that a man who can reasonably expect decent treatment at the hands of his captors is more likely to surrender?
How many of our soldiers lives are thereby put at risk?
[/QUOTE]
Dying for Allah is the ultimate honor for them. The hardcore people who are going to possess the information we need will not surrender regardless of our information extraction policy.
[QUOTE=Aptly Yclept]
…This is actually a decent effort to attempt to undermine my position by painting me as someone who thinks the world works in terms of action movies. Let me try…
[/QUOTE]
You said be brutally frank, right? Well, not so good. A little, what?..flatfooted? Needs a little…oh, I don’t know…je nes se quois? If Little Green Footballs had their own version of the Daily Show, it might fly there. But I’m not to judge, don’t have much in the way of the sarcastic arts.
But my point wasn’t actually mockish, it was more along the lines of suggesting that such dramatic demands for immediacy were, well, dramatic. If the terrorist has information that would save my kids, and I have to have it in fifteen minutes, would I torture him? Of course, and no jury in the world would convict me! In the most extreme of circumstances savagery can be justified.
That is not anything like establishing it as an acceptable practice.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
But my point wasn’t actually mockish, it was more along the lines of suggesting that such dramatic demands for immediacy were, well, dramatic. If the terrorist has information that would save my kids, and I have to have it in fifteen minutes, would I torture him? Of course, and no jury in the world would convict me! In the most extreme of circumstances savagery can be justified.
That is not anything like establishing it as an acceptable practice.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you on this. I don’t want it done every day either. Perhaps we should use Bill Clinton’s abortion criteria…safe, legal and rare. The instances should be few and far between for these methods. But if they are needed, I want them to be used.
And by the way, please explain the name change for me that you’ve used the past couple of times. I thought the mods frowned on that by the way…should we get the waterboard ready for you, luci?
[Quote=Evil One]
Do I support torturing innocent people? No. Is it possible someone will be waterboarded because they are captured in a scenario like I just put forth? Of course. Is it your assertion that we give up the opportunity to extract life-saving information because we don’t want to be mean to someone who is committed to killing as many of us as possible?
[/Quote]
Your scenario is a specific, highly limited circumstance that is very similar to propositions put forward many times in this forum and that have generally been shown to be lacking, and you are carefully avoiding addressing my main point. I am not arguing that “we don’t want to be mean to someone who is committed to killing as many of us as possible”, I am arguing that we don’t want to be mean to people about whom we have no clear idea of guilt or innocence.
You state that you do not support torturing innocent people, but it seems to me that you clearly assert that at least a few innocent people being tortured doesn’t matter, as long as the knowledge that torture is being carried out satisfies your need for an abstract feeling of security.
Look, I understand your wanting to have total security at any cost that does not have to be borne by you alone. I simply cannot agree with your blind belief that the US government, given the power to utilize torture as an officially authorized interrogation technique, will somehow magically use it only on the guilty, unlike any other government in history that has officially codified such techniques.
Lastly, I presume this is an easy decision for you because you have never experienced torture or lengthy captivity without legal recourse, and are reasonably sure that some aspect of your citizenship and position insulates you from ever being treated in such a fashion. I hope that remains the case, but I submit that if you or members of your family would ever have the misfortune, as so many outside the US have, of being subject to torture by a state apparatus, you’d be singing an entirely different tune.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
…I thought the mods frowned on that by the way…should we get the waterboard ready for you, luci?
[/QUOTE]
Oh, no! No, not that! I’ll talk! It was Barzini, all along!
While I read through this thead’s maze of arguments, I stopped and thought about the big picture and nearly became physically ill.
I just can’t believe we are seriously discussing whether or not it’s a good idea to torture people.
I’m disgusted beyond belief that my country has arrived at this point, and that there are those who use civilized words in an effort to justify animalistic behavior. I thought that we, as a nation, were better than this.
It’s almost comical how we have - knowingly - become that which we despise in others.
The way I see it is the United States is being threatened from two directions. On the one side, terrorists are trying to attack us to undermine our political system and international affairs - on the other side, people in this country are trying to set up a secret police state, which will undermine our political system much more thoroughly albeit less dramatically.
[QUOTE=An Arky]
Anyway, the thing that gets me about this stuff is that I’ve read and heard for years how torture isn’t really effective, but now this administration seems to be really, really big on it. Setting aside that inhumanity thing for a moment, doesn’t this reliance on torture seem, well, kind of incompetent?
[/QUOTE]
These are people who sneer at the “reality based community”, who think they can define their own reality. I expect they think that if someone is tortured into a confession, he must be guilty because he confessed.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
I’ve been thinking about this myself. If the average guy lasts 14 seconds under this treatment and the toughest guys last less than three minutes, and the technique leaves no marks, and there is little risk of injury or death, and it can be done with what amounts to stone age level technology…
why has anyone ever used anything else, in the history of mankind? Why all the bother with racks and ropes and chains and red-hot irons and spikes and stuff?
[/QUOTE]
Entertainment and intimidation. That’s what torture is about, mostly.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
The comfort level of someone who is planning to execute an attack on innocent people means nothing to me.
[/quote]
Torturers and those who support torture are not innocent, they are monsters. You appear determined to make the terrorists right; to prove that we really are the “Great Satan”.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Unlikely? The whole point of the debate in the Senate is what the CIA can and cannot do to someone designated a “high value” target. In other words, someone high enough on the food chain to have information that is actionable. Why bother to do this to anyone who doesn’t have anything of value to tell you?
[/quote]
Because we don’t care if he’s “high value” or not. Or because we want him to “confirm” something that we want to be true. Or because he’s the wrong race or religion or sexuality. Or for the sheer fun of it.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Do you guys think the CIA will be doing this to schoolchildren to see if they cheated on thier homework or not?
[/quote]
More likely to intimidate their parents. They’ll probably molest the kids too, again.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Again, the rules about who can do the waterboarding…and to whom…will be spelled out.
[/quote]
The rule is “whomever the President feels like.”
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Pretending that “thousands of innocents” will have it done to them is either slippery slope paranoia or a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and dilute the point.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s predictable; I’d say tens or hundreds of thousands.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
Noone likes the idea of torture but it works, its been used for cneturies and for good reason. It worked for the French in Algeria (even though they eventually lost that war), it worked for the Italians when they had domestic terrotists, it works all the time in China. Sure you get a lot of innocent people being tortured and some false positives but you usually get the answers you want eventually.
[/QUOTE]
You get the answers you want, not the true ones. Yes, if you torture enough people you can often make them submit; not because you are getting good information, but because everybody is too terrified to do anything beyond keep their head down and stay alive. That’s terrified as in terrorism, but of course terrorism is OK if we are the terrorists. I also disagree with you that no one likes the idea; most Americans don’t care, and most of the rest are gloating sadists.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
Maybe our society can handle this sort of moral slide for a short while but over a long enough time horizon, we turn into monsters.
[/quote]
We already are, or we would not do what we have done.
[QUOTE=col_10022]
On the one hand, if you have nothing to hide, then what’s the problem and it might keep me from getting blown up.
[/QUOTE]
Because it doesn’t matter if you have anything to hide; they’ll torture you anyway in order to make you confess to your nonexistent crimes.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Do you really think the idea of a dirty bomb being used is paranoia?
[/QUOTE]
No, but it’s too trivial to torture someone over. Not that torture would stop one being used anyway. Torture doesn’t make people speak the truth, it just makes them say what you want.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
I happen to think the idea is much more likely than of huge numbers of innocent people being tortured.
[/QUOTE]
Why ?
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Dying for Allah is the ultimate honor for them. The hardcore people who are going to possess the information we need will not surrender regardless of our information extraction policy.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Which means that no one who is tortured will deserve to be tortured, by your own “logic”.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
[QUOTE=Aptly Yclept]
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]
Moderator’s Warning: Do not alter another poster’s username to be an insult outside of the Pit; and do not make alterations to what another poster has said (including to their user name) inside the quote tags.
Does anyone remember, it seems only weeks ago, that *whether there was * a US policy of torturing its prisoners was presented as a debateable proposition. It’s nicely demonstrative that those who formerly sought to argue the point are now silent, yet hold to their political views.
Look on the bright side, we don’t hear any more of that guff about the US being a light on the hill, a nation under god, or having honor in its military. Which is really rather surprising, given how attached the culture seems to have been to those pretty phrases.
I wonder how long before “fight them here, so we don’t get airsick going over there” or however it goes, is similarly dislodged from the playbook of the committed politico?
No malice was intended, but I recognize I am not always considerate of delicate sensibilities.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
No malice was intended, but I recognize I am not always considerate of delicate sensibilities.
[/QUOTE]
Too much of Twain, not adequate Austen.
A question for Evil One. Since you and your family are at way more danger from violent criminals than they are from terrorists, do you agree that such techniques - knuckle chopping, waterboarding - should also be applied to criminal suspects in the US to make them reveal details of their accomplices and crime networks?
If the use of torture by the US is ok to save innocent US lives, is it ok for other countries to utilize torture to save the innocent lives of its citizens?
If yes, then would it then be ok for a country under attack or threat of potential attack by the US to torture US citizens in order to stop or minimize its civillian casualities?
If we utilize torture, wouldn’t our complaints of other countries utilizing torture be hypocritical?
If saving innocent US lives is the criteria for making torture acceptable, why not apply to domestic criminals and domestic terrorists as well?
[QUOTE=Evil One]
Folks on the left must continue to hold onto the mantra that the practice does not yeild anything useful. Because if actionable intelligence is gleaned from waterboarding, that would force them to leave their ideological comfort zone and face the reality of hard choices where lives are at stake.
I have heard from ABC’s Brian Ross among others outside the government (because we all know they would lie about something like this, don’t we) that waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation methods have stopped attacks and saved lives.
But don’t let that bother you folks. Keep up the good work.
[/QUOTE]
Well I heard from giant robot chickens on the moon that it’s possible to get useful information from Republicans by attaching phone wires to their genitals, so I think we should do that. A lot. Ain’t it horrible how these conservatives oppose attaching phone wires to the genitals of Republicans? Don’t they care at all about protecting the chillllll-druuuuuun?
[QUOTE=jjimm]
A question for Evil One. Since you and your family are at way more danger from violent criminals than they are from terrorists, do you agree that such techniques - knuckle chopping, waterboarding - should also be applied to criminal suspects in the US to make them reveal details of their accomplices and crime networks?
[/QUOTE]
No, I do not. I think such a practice should be reserved for people who are involved in planning and execution of terrorist attacks that could kill hundreds if not thousands of people.
[QUOTE=Evil One]
No, I do not. I think such a practice should be reserved for people who are involved in planning and execution of terrorist attacks that could kill hundreds if not thousands of people.
[/QUOTE]
Why do you make such a distinction?
[QUOTE=Evil One]
No, I do not. I think such a practice should be reserved for people who are involved in planning and execution of terrorist attacks that could kill hundreds if not thousands of people.
[/QUOTE]
So we should torture everyone involved in the conquest of Iraq ? “Shock and Awe” was terrorism with a dramatic name. Kidnapping and torturing people is pretty terroristic itself.
To be consistant, shouldn’t the torturers all torture each other ?