Torture/Waterboarding: Discussion/Debate Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
2861U2 said:


What is your definition of "love?"

Do you live 100% by that statement?

If so, you opposed going after Al-Qaeda after 9/11, right?

You don't believe in any sort of prison or punishment for criminals, right?

If someone in your family was murdered, you wouldn't mind if he was never brought to justice, right?

If someone is mean to you, you are never ever mean in return or hostile in any way, right?

If you truly love your enemy, BVS, you can't possibly support any of the above.

I love my brother, but if committed a crime, he should go to jail. You can still treat your prisoners and enemies with basic human rights.

You love your children but you discipline them when they do wrong.
 
so I guess we'll next have to argue suitable methods of discipline approved only by the jesus invokers of convenience.

dbs
 
I'm sure the jesus invokers of convenience will see it fit that Joran Vandersloot's confession be thrown out as well-because the method of extracting the confession was dubious.

Bravo.

holloway.jpg
 
diamond said:
so I guess we'll next have to argue suitable methods of discipline approved only by the jesus invokers of convenience.

dbs

Like deny rights to those that aren't like you?

Wow, you go way out of your way to miss points, don't you?
 
diamond said:
I'm sure the jesus invokers of convenience will see it fit that Joran Vandersloot's confession be thrown out as well-because the method of extracting the confession was dubious.


:huh:

That mental illness is kicking in fast, eh?

If we allowed "any means necessary" someone could have you in prison tomorrow for life.
 
We have a checks and balances process for a reason.

If a confession was made in a way that doesn't fit the letter of the law, it can't be used. If a confession was made while the person was under the influence or something, it can't be used. We have these checks and balances to protect us. They may not always work in our favor, but if we break them we just make it that much easier for innocent people to be sentenced.

If we start allowing anything to be admitted as evidence or false confessions, then what's the point?
 
Here's an example:

Diamond, let's say we started allowing torture within our borders in order to get "information", I could call up my FBI friend tomorrow tell him you have information on an attack. He takes you in and starts questioning you, you don't say anything, because honestly you have no info, I just made it up because I'm a pissed off neighbor. So you don't respond to normal questioning so he starts torturing you. You have two choices, die(or at least feel like you are going to die) or make up something in order to save your life...

How is this effective? Disgruntal neighbors, disgruntal employees, disgruntal terrorists they all have the ability to make something up to turn someone in.
 
diamond said:
:eyebrow:

Which one of the 3 stooges burped?

phillyfan26
Online 02-04-2008 05:21 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


Diemen
Online 02-04-2008 05:23 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]


BonoVoxSupastar
Online 02-04-2008 05:26 PM This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

You're the only person I've ever seen brag that you use the ignore list.

I personally think the ignore list is stupid, but that's just me.

You read the posts anyway. The only time you seem to use the ignore list is to make posts like this or use it as a cop out to avoid an argument.
 
diamond said:
so I guess we'll next have to argue suitable methods of discipline approved only by the jesus invokers of convenience

I've tried to stay away from the religious argument for the most part, so address my post. All you've done so far is post that you're ignoring me. Address this:

phillyfan26 said:
Aside from this ridiculous attempt to justify it:

1. You can't prove they're terrorists.

2. Torture doesn't work.

If you, Diamond, 2618, or anyone else who's pro-torture addresses these, then there'll at least be some substance here.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
We have a checks and balances process for a reason.

If a confession was made in a way that doesn't fit the letter of the law, it can't be used. If a confession was made while the person was under the influence or something, it can't be used. We have these checks and balances to protect us. They may not always work in our favor, but if we break them we just make it that much easier for innocent people to be sentenced.

If we start allowing anything to be admitted as evidence or false confessions, then what's the point?

No you say than to rearresting Vandersloot then, correct?

dbs
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Here's an example:

Diamond, let's say we started allowing torture within our borders in order to get "information", I could call up my FBI friend tomorrow tell him you have information on an attack. He takes you in and starts questioning you, you don't say anything, because honestly you have no info, I just made it up because I'm a pissed off neighbor. So you don't respond to normal questioning so he starts torturing you. You have two choices, die(or at least feel like you are going to die) or make up something in order to save your life...

How is this effective? Disgruntal neighbors, disgruntal employees, disgruntal terrorists they all have the ability to make something up to turn someone in.

This is an easy one.

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

dbs
 
phillyfan26 said:


I've tried to stay away from the religious argument for the most part, so address my post. All you've done so far is post that you're ignoring me. Address this:


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
 
diamond said:
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.
 
diamond said:
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?
 
diamond said:
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.
 
A case for torture in extreme situations
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
 
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.
 
diamond said:

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?
 
diamond said:


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.
 
A_Wanderer said:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom