Torture/Waterboarding: Discussion/Debate Thread - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-04-2008, 11:14 PM   #166
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
stop acting like terrorists should be given prefrentail treatment for polictically correct reasons.

It's not preferential treatment; it's acting like a human being, even when your opponent has not. It's not stooping to their level. It's about being able to face yourself (and possibly your God) and know that you yourself did the right thing, no matter what.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:18 PM   #167
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Waterboarding worked on a known terrorist, it's been proven in this thread already.
It saved lives.

I say always keep it as a last resort, using only under extreme circumstances only-and stop acting like terrorists should be given prefrentail treatment for polictically correct reasons.

dbs
How do we judge what is "known?"

How is it preferential to be given basic human rights?
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:19 PM   #168
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by phillyfan26

How is it preferential to be given basic human rights?
Liberal.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:31 PM   #169
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
This is an easy one.

The FBI wouldn't arrest me but arrest you for making crap music.
That was a really unnecessary cheap shot.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:33 PM   #170
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


No you say than to rearresting Vandersloot then, correct?

dbs
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:37 PM   #171
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


This is an easy one.

The FBI wouldn't arrest me but arrest you for making crap music.

dbs
So this is how you react when you don't have answers...

I feel sorry for you, I really do.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:39 PM   #172
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:22 PM
A case for torture in extreme situations
Quote:
Recent events stemming from the "war on terrorism" have highlighted the prevalence of torture. This is despite the fact that torture is almost universally deplored. The formal prohibition against torture is absolute - there are no exceptions to it.

The belief that torture is always wrong is, however, misguided and symptomatic of the alarmist and reflexive responses typically emanating from social commentators. It is this type of absolutist and short-sighted rhetoric that lies at the core of many distorted moral judgements that we as a community continue to make, resulting in an enormous amount of injustice and suffering in our society and far beyond our borders.

Torture is permissible where the evidence suggests that this is the only means, due to the immediacy of the situation, to save the life of an innocent person. The reason that torture in such a case is defensible and necessary is because the justification manifests from the closest thing we have to an inviolable right: the right to self-defence, which of course extends to the defence of another. Given the choice between inflicting a relatively small level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving an innocent person, it is verging on moral indecency to prefer the interests of the wrongdoer.

The analogy with self-defence is sharpened by considering the hostage-taking scenario, where a wrongdoer takes a hostage and points a gun to the hostage's head, threatening to kill the hostage unless a certain (unreasonable) demand is met. In such a case it is not only permissible, but desirable for police to shoot (and kill) the wrongdoer if they get a "clear shot". This is especially true if it's known that the wrongdoer has a history of serious violence, and hence is more likely to carry out the threat.

There is no logical or moral difference between this scenario and one where there is overwhelming evidence that a wrongdoer has kidnapped an innocent person and informs police that the victim will be killed by a co-offender if certain demands are not met.

In the hostage scenario, it is universally accepted that it is permissible to violate the right to life of the aggressor to save an innocent person. How can it be wrong to violate an even less important right (the right to physical integrity) by torturing the aggressor in order to save a life in the second scenario?

There are three main counter-arguments to even the above limited approval of torture. The first is the slippery slope argument: if you start allowing torture in a limited context, the situations in which it will be used will increase.

This argument is not sound in the context of torture. First, the floodgates are already open - torture is used widely, despite the absolute legal prohibition against it. Amnesty International has recently reported that it had received, during 2003, reports of torture and ill-treatment from 132 countries, including the United States, Japan and France. It is, in fact, arguable that it is the existence of an unrealistic absolute ban that has driven torture beneath the radar of accountability, and that legalisation in very rare circumstances would in fact reduce instances of it.

The second main argument is that torture will dehumanise society. This is no more true in relation to torture than it is with self-defence, and in fact the contrary is true. A society that elects to favour the interests of wrongdoers over those of the innocent, when a choice must be made between the two, is in need of serious ethical rewiring.

A third counter-argument is that we can never be totally sure that torturing a person will in fact result in us saving an innocent life. This, however, is the same situation as in all cases of self-defence. To revisit the hostage example, the hostage-taker's gun might in fact be empty, yet it is still permissible to shoot. As with any decision, we must decide on the best evidence at the time.

Torture in order to save an innocent person is the only situation where it is clearly justifiable. This means that the recent high-profile incidents of torture, apparently undertaken as punitive measures or in a bid to acquire information where there was no evidence of an immediate risk to the life of an innocent person, were reprehensible.

Will a real-life situation actually occur where the only option is between torturing a wrongdoer or saving an innocent person? Perhaps not. However, a minor alteration to the Douglas Wood situation illustrates that the issue is far from moot. If Western forces in Iraq arrested one of Mr Wood's captors, it would be a perverse ethic that required us to respect the physical integrity of the captor, and not torture him to ascertain Mr Wood's whereabouts, in preference to taking all possible steps to save Mr Wood.

Even if a real-life situation where torture is justifiable does not eventuate, the above argument in favour of torture in limited circumstances needs to be made because it will encourage the community to think more carefully about moral judgements we collectively hold that are the cause of an enormous amount of suffering in the world.

First, no right or interest is absolute. Secondly, rights must always yield to consequences, which are the ultimate criteria upon which the soundness of a decision is gauged. Lost lives hurt a lot more than bent principles.

Thirdly, we must take responsibility not only for the things that we do, but also for the things that we can - but fail to - prevent. The retort that we are not responsible for the lives lost through a decision not to torture a wrongdoer because we did not create the situation is code for moral indifference.

Equally vacuous is the claim that we in the affluent West have no responsibility for more than 13,000 people dying daily due to starvation. Hopefully, the debate on torture will prompt us to correct some of these fundamental failings.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/A-case-for-torture/2005/05/16/1116095904947.html
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-04-2008, 11:44 PM   #173
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:22 PM
I don't think that consolidating torture powers in the hands of the state, on or off the books, is a good idea. I also think the last people to trust with any torture power would be the CIA.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-05-2008, 12:45 AM   #174
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

Irvine doesn't like that it isn't a 100% effective, and guess what no methods are 100% effective-that's why it should be left on the table.



this coming from someone who preaches sexual abstinence?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-05-2008, 12:46 AM   #175
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

2: It does if you do it enough.


this it does not do.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-05-2008, 12:50 AM   #176
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Waterboarding worked on a known terrorist, it's been proven in this thread already.
It saved lives.



yes, this is what the person who was torturing would have you believe.

he's a disinterested party. he has no interest in justifying his own actions. it's like with the US army and Iraq. they know what best to do because they are actually there at the time and these are nice, honest men who tell us the plain truth in straight talk.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-05-2008, 12:51 AM   #177
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
A case for torture in extreme situationshttp://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/A-case-for-torture/2005/05/16/1116095904947.html


i will address this tomorrow. 'tis nearly 1am here.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-05-2008, 01:20 AM   #178
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:22 PM
I suspect that it your response would be focused on effectiveness. The claim that torture never works seems silly - people don't like getting hurt and can be coerced into giving up information, and if it works (sometimes or often - the frequency is irrelevent) then there is a potential dillema. The instances that are cited are not people that have been dobbed in by neighbours, they are the top tier "Al Qaeda" leadership that was connected to previous plots and captured in those rare instances where the intelligence was right.

The case for torture is made on utilitarian grounds, make a case against torture on the same grounds. The open question of using torture may well be beneficial in interrogation (if people think they are at risk they may give up) but at the same time it compromises operational and diplomatic ties and looses hearts and minds. The cost of an ambiguous torture policy far outweighs the benefits, so in terms of policy it can't be allowed. That still doesn't take care of the actual torture that does and would continue to go on in the gaps (of course having things like Gitmo are great, they deflect attention from the far more serious issues like secret CIA prisons).

Calling somebody the moral equivalent of Kim Jong Il is really out of proportion, there is a gigantic difference between somebody who advocated inflicting pain on a terrorist (and yes, that question of definition is huge, because there has to be accountability) to an end and a head of a total state with it's own concentration camps.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-05-2008, 01:32 AM   #179
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:22 PM


WWJD

Marginally less detatched from reality than Jesus.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-05-2008, 01:48 AM   #180
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 12:22 AM
I was wondering how long it would take before Jack came into the thread...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com