Torture

Status
Not open for further replies.
pittpizza

pittpizza

CAGiversary!
I've been thinking about starting this thread for a while and figured the Senate Democrats waffling on Mukasey is as good a reason as any to bring it up. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/mukasey.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

What are your opinions on torture? How do you define it? Is waterboarding torture? Does it have to be physical or is there mental torture? Are there ever situations where it should be used? What about extraordinary rendition? What about the reliability of the information elicited from torture? Does it hurt our society, if so how?

I personally don't think we should ever use torture. Condoning torture and officially adopting its use makes us more inhumane as a society and makes us look inhumane in a foreign policy context. There is also a strong argument that its just fucking wrong. Mukasey's confirmation also tells us that we should not expect any more independence of the AG's office from the executive administration than we got from Gonzalez.
 
Eh, I liked Mukasey...but I understand why he didn't comment on waterboarding. The Bush administration may already be doing it...and he can't come out and say its unconstitutional when he's trying to get confirmed to work for the President who's supporting this. Which is a shame, he should be able to come right out and say what he thinks.

Me? I think our Constitution outlines that cruel and unusual punishment, which includes torture, is illegal on our citizens. Oddly enough, it doesn't imply that same thing to non-citizens...but I think since all people are endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights...this is amongst them, the right not ot be tortured.
 
You should first define what you believe to be torture to make the discussion pertinent.

First order of buisness in an argument or a contract - define your terms. You should know this, being a lawyer and all...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']You should first define what you believe to be torture to make the discussion pertinent.

First order of buisness in an argument or a contract - define your terms. You should know this, being a lawyer and all...[/quote]

I do know it, which is why I asked in my OP, "How do you define it?" My goal was to have the difficulty of defining it included as part of the discussion. IMO there is a lot of grey area.

I suppose I would define torture as: the physical or psychological imposition of severe pain and discomfort, inflicted with the goal of eliciting information. Also included would be the physical or psychological imposition of pain and discomfort to strike fear into the heart of your enemies. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Torture

I don't think anybody condones torture just for shits and giggles, I am mostly referring to the interrogatory tortue as defined by definition # 1.
 
This might make me sound barbaric or whatever, but I personally would prefer some form of torture over the death penalty. It could be a more effective deterrent against violent/sexual crimes. And in the worst case scenario, if anyone is wrongly convicted, at least you won't have ended an innocent life.
 
Waterboarding is definitely torture. I'd go with your definition from dictionary.com pittpizza. To tell if any particular thing is torture you'd just have to go by that guideline.

And torture is inhumane, against the ideals of the country, and most of all just isn't reliable so it's inhumane for no real reason.

People often bring up the situation that "there's an imminent attack and you know this guy knows something so would you torture him?" But if you know he knows something, but you don't know what that is, how the hell do you verify it? So you know he knows something, but he can lie to you and you wouldn't know the difference so how does torturing him help really? I'd like to know the explanation of why that would work.
 
we use to wag our collective finger against countries that tortured, and had the mentality that stuff like that would not fly here. Sadly many things that were beneath us as society are much more common. How can we criticize other countries on human rights now that we torture people on a regular basis.
 
I dont know that I can give a general definition that would cover all forms of torture. It's kinda like that old thing about pornography "I know it when I see it". Waterboarding in particular, I can without a doubt say, is indeed torture.

Morally, I think we do our country a disservice if we torture. We sink to the lowest possible level, IMO. We lose all moral 'high ground' and worse yet, we put our servicemen and women in more peril. If *we* support torture, then what would prevent any enemy (not just the "Islamo-fascists' we are currently involved with) from doing the same?

Even if you dont have a moral objection to torture, and belive the strawman 'ticking time-bomb' argument, the truth is that torture doesnt work. Just take the words of a man who was actually tortured in wartime: Sen John McCain
( http://mccain.senate.gov/press_office/view_article.cfm?id=891 )

In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear--whether it is true or false--if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers
Click to expand...
offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.
Click to expand...

So even in the 'ticking time-bomb' scenario, what makes one think that a "terrorist" would tell you exactly where the bomb is when all he has do is tell you the bomb is in New York City when it is really in Los Angeles. By the time you find out the information is false, it would be too late anyway.

On a lighter note, when someone asks me the 'ticking time-bomb' problem and would I torture in that situation, I ask them if they would participate in same-sex sex to save lives. Most times I am only answered with stunned silence. :)
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']god i cant stand olbermann, hes just as looney as hannity[/QUOTE]
Yup, I wholeheartedly agree.

On a lighter note, when someone asks me the 'ticking time-bomb' problem and would I torture in that situation, I ask them if they would participate in same-sex sex to save lives. Most times I am only answered with stunned silence.
Click to expand...

If you asked me to fuck a guy in the ass to make him give up the location of a bomb to save thousands of lives, I wouldn't even waste time to ask you for the vaseline. This actually might be a good strategy in the case of islamic terrorists. It would probably be worse than torture and make them talk so that they would not be disgraced by an infidel and lose their "get 42 virgins free" card.
 
The "ticking time bomb" hypothetical is a joke anyway, that situation will almost certainly never happen.

We should not be doing anything that could be reasonably construed as torture, including waterboarding. This country has rightly been able to make morally-based claims for a long time, and I feel we have been pissing this ability away by doing stuff like waterboarding. Keep in mind I'm not against interrogation or even against Guantanamo Bay as a prison. Nor do I live in the la-la land that evidently some of us reside in with beliefs that countries like Iran or Syria would not torture our servicemen if they were captured, so long as we didn't torture. But there is a value to having the moral high ground.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The "ticking time bomb" hypothetical is a joke anyway, that situation will almost certainly never happen.

[/quote]

HA! Try convincing the average viewer of "24" on that one...
 
It's only torture if the US does it.

The easy answer, then? MORE SECRET RENDITION!

It's what Jack Bauer would do if his hands were tied. Right?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yup, I wholeheartedly agree.



If you asked me to fuck a guy in the ass to make him give up the location of a bomb to save thousands of lives, I wouldn't even waste time to ask you for the vaseline. This actually might be a good strategy in the case of islamic terrorists. It would probably be worse than torture and make them talk so that they would not be disgraced by an infidel and lose their "get 42 virgins free" card.[/QUOTE]


What is your life to dick ratio? How many dicks would you suck to save X number of lives? Would you take a hot, throbbing cock in the ass to save 1 life? 2? The first WTC bomb killed what? Six people? OK, how many islamic cocks would you suck (to completion) to save those six lives? And remember - no pitching, only catching.
 
I've given the "ticking time bomb" argument in favor of limited torture in some circumstances more credit than people in here seem to.

Why not bend morals and torture one person to save millions, thousands, hundreds?

As to the "if we do it, it will be done to us argument" somebody already mentioned that having a policy of not tortuing people is no guarantee that it won't happen to us.

There is, of course, the counter argument that doing it makes it more likely to happen to our soldiers, spies, citizens, etc. There is also the point that we lose the ability to take the moral high ground and denounce others for inhuman civil rights violations when we practice them ourselves.

Haven't we always done it though? Even if it was behind closed doors?

What about Dershowitz's argument that if we bring limited questionable interrogation practices (aka torture) into the realm of oversight, it will be done in a better way than the back room practices where it is likely to go too far.

I really liked Oberman's points in his special comment and found them very compelling; I seriously do think Bush is guilty of war crimes and should serve prison time.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I suppose I would define torture as: the physical or psychological imposition of severe pain and discomfort, inflicted with the goal of eliciting information. Also included would be the physical or psychological imposition of pain and discomfort to strike fear into the heart of your enemies. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Torture

I don't think anybody condones torture just for shits and giggles, I am mostly referring to the interrogatory tortue as defined by definition # 1.[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, real torture is done for shits and giggles and not for the eliciting information. The true terror comes from knowing that pain is being inflicted upon you for no reason other than to cause you "extreme discomfort" (whatever that means).

There's a new sensory deprivation technique that falls well outside your torture definition, yet I'm sure you anti-torture reactionaries would find something wrong with it. God forbid we should make any prisoner suffer from any discomfort.

There's also no real value to keeping a moral high ground to an enemy who considers your existence as an infidel an impediment to the next coming of god's kingdom on earth. They don't call us "The Great Satan" for nothing.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']There's also no real value to keeping a moral high ground[/QUOTE]

Sometimes I don't even need to respond to you, no?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']There's also no real value to keeping a moral high ground to an enemy who considers your existence as an infidel an impediment to the next coming of god's kingdom on earth. They don't call us "The Great Satan" for nothing.[/QUOTE]

I strongly disagree. You are forgetting there are people in this world other than "them and us." A lot of these people are predisposed toward supporting those who respect things like the Geneva Conventions (pretty much all the democracies in the world). By forfeiting the moral high ground and sinking to the level of those who torture and behead people, we are alienating a large base of support in our fight against extremism. It also makes it harder for us to credibly criticize countries like Egypt and Syria, who routinely use torture, for their transgressions.
 
Please tell me no one is that naive to believe that every country in the world does not have an intelligence service that uses some form of sadistic interrogation technique. We're off the topic anyway when we haven't even come close to an agreement on what constitutes torture. A real discussion cannot continue until this term has been even moderately defined.

Is a smack in the face torture ?
How about missing your daily serving of fillet mignon ?
Is sleep deprivation torture?

I'm positive that some of you believe that incarceration itself is tantamount to torture. Or, at the very least, just a threat of bodily harm should fall under the definition. No one has yet to even think about my comment about sensory deprivation. Still trying to figure out how to include it in your definition of abhorrent Bush behavior, no doubt. Keep working - I'm more than happy to hear your condemnation of the right wing fascists for using this new technique- when you can figure out how torturous it is.
 
Rendition, or at least the result of it, is indeed torture.

And it's something out government is doing, irrespective of any obfuscation-based "is waterboarding torture" or "everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't we?" argument you'd like to foist.
 
So, extraction of suspects to all those 3d world countries for more "intense" interrogation is torture ? Or is it the threat of rendition, or obfuscated extradition ? Let's talk about specific techniques, not the process in order to gauge the line between interrogation to torture.

Now I'm more confused. We need to keep the moral high ground over all those 3d world countries that have no anti-torture laws, torture their own criminals freely, and are more than happy to allow us to use their facilities to do the same?

Yes, let's eliminate any form of discomfort for aggressors against America and any detriment to being captured as a terrorist. Let's let them know that any conspiracy to kill Americans will result in 3 squares a day , all the toilet paper they can use, a private toilet, and a standard issue Koran. Then they can all have a good laugh back in allah-land preening about another vertebra-ectomy they've achieved in Satan's stronghold. The price of attacking america? A free, comfortable waiting room for heaven's harem.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']god i cant stand olbermann, hes just as looney as hannity[/QUOTE]

Ok, now you're just denying reality.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']We need to keep the moral high ground over all those 3d world countries that have no anti-torture laws, torture their own criminals freely, and are more than happy to allow us to use their facilities to do the same? [/quote]

Yes! Now you're learning. If we stopped using thier facilities to torture we would actually have a position from which we could stand against torture.

Which makes more sense to you? (1) A drunk telling an alcoholic not to drink, or (2) A sober person telling an alcoholic not to drink. By engaging in tortue we really have no place to talk, which is (I think) what people have been trying to explain as a one of the many benefits of stopping our tortue practices.

[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, let's eliminate any form of discomfort for aggressors against America and any detriment to being captured as a terrorist. Let's let them know that any conspiracy to kill Americans will result in 3 squares a day , all the toilet paper they can use, a private toilet, and a standard issue Koran. Then they can all have a good laugh back in allah-land preening about another vertebra-ectomy they've achieved in Satan's stronghold. The price of attacking america? A free, comfortable waiting room for heaven's harem. [/quote]

You seriously need to do some research on what it is like in federal prisons. You've obviously never been to jail. Anyway, ignoring your gross mischaracterization, there is almost a decent point in there. I think you're alluding to torture as a deterrent to "any conspiracy to kill Americans." Do you think islamic fundamentalists can be deterred from wanting to kill infidels? I don't, but there may be some better source of authority around these boards to talk about deterrence or lack thereof. NOTE: Nobody should take this to mean that I don't think deterrence works in other contexts, I just think that Al Q type suicide bombers are not going to be deterred by anything at all, even torture. It will (and IS) probably just make them hate us more and be more motivated to kill kill kill.
 
I thought the golden rule was supposed to be "do to others as you would have them to do you" not "if they'd do it to you, do it to them."
 
[quote name='SpazX']I thought the golden rule was supposed to be "do to others as you would have them to do you" not "if they'd do it to you, do it to them."[/QUOTE]

Separation of church and state! Separation of church and state! ;)
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Yes! Now you're learning. If we stopped using thier facilities to torture we would actually have a position from which we could stand against torture. [/quote]

Stand for what purpose? You think we can change their others' views of torture around the world? You think they will abandon their thousand year traditions of cutting off hands for thievery or stoning women who are found alone with a man who is not their husband because we outlaw it? You admit they hate us, but then you claim they'll want to be like us because we'll set a good example? They don't like any of our other examples so why would they just give up cutting of heads for effect? Clearly you don't know anyone from that region or anyone who has served there that well, nor have you ever visited. Maybe you should do some research on that.

It's impossible to increase their motivation no matter how many people we do or do not torture. They've made their decision and their motivation and goal is resolute: destroy America and Israel. Have a drink and chew on that for a while. Maybe we should just set a good example and leave them alone and they'll decide to follow our example and leave us alone too.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Stand for what purpose? You think we can change their others' views of torture around the world? You think they will abandon their thousand year traditions of cutting off hands for thievery or stoning women who are found alone with a man who is not their husband because we outlaw it? You admit they hate us, but then you claim they'll want to be like us because we'll set a good example? They don't like any of our other examples so why would they just give up cutting of heads for effect? Clearly you don't know anyone from that region or anyone who has served there that well, nor have you ever visited. Maybe you should do some research on that.

It's impossible to increase their motivation no matter how many people we do or do not torture. They've made their decision and their motivation and goal is resolute: destroy America and Israel. Have a drink and chew on that for a while. Maybe we should just set a good example and leave them alone and they'll decide to follow our example and leave us alone too.[/quote]

My statement was not that we will change their minds, on the contrary if you had read my previous posts you would have known that I do not beleive we will/can deter them from their Jihadist ways.

My statement was simply that if we ceased torture practices, even backdoor ones, we would be in a position to stand against torture. This pays dividends beyond how it would affect Islamic fundamentalists. They do, after all, comprise a very small minority of the world. Taking a stand against torture would provide benefits, which have already been laid out by others in this thread, which would be predominantly reaped not from Islamic Fundamentalists, but rather from those on the fringes, and the rest of the majority of the people of the world.

BTW my presence in the middle east really has nothing to do with whether or not I'm informed enough to have opinions on the subject of tortue. There are many people who have been there that probably know less, and many people that have not that probably know more, but for what its worth, I have actually been there. Not to Anbar province in the middle of a firefight and videotaped execution, but to the region none-the-less.

You said "It's impossible to increase their motivation no matter how many people we do or do not torture." Well what about possibly DECREASING their motivation by not fuckin torturing them!?

As to your last sentence, I could not agree with you more. You deserve a smiley!:)
 
[quote name='pittpizza']
My statement was simply that if we ceased torture practices, even backdoor ones, we would be in a position to stand against torture.[/quote]

How exactly to we stand? against whom? someone who cares? What exactly with this "stand" accomplish? You provide no rationale for making a stand if you admit they'll keep dragging bloody, headless bodies through the streets no matter what we choose to stand or sit for.


This pays dividends beyond how it would affect Islamic fundamentalists. They do, after all, comprise a very small minority of the world. Taking a stand against torture would provide benefits, which have already been laid out by others in this thread, which would be predominantly reaped not from Islamic Fundamentalists, but rather from those on the fringes, and the rest of the majority of the people of the world.
Click to expand...

No, the benefits have not been spelled out in this or any other thread. Please spell them for me. Fringe believers will join our side instead of theirs? I find that hard to believe - and even harder to prove. But, it's nice to dream of a nice world where we all lay down our arms and make nice-nice.

I really don't care if you've visited the "region" or not. I was making light of your tactic of claiming I don't know that prisons aren't real deterrents because I've probably never visited one. My point was about a negative deterrent. They won't be afraid to conspire against us because we torture, they'll consider the penalty for failure and capture a vacation instead of punishment. It's like an incentive to attack us. Die as a martyr get 42 virgins. Get caught and get free american healthcare. WIN-WIN !!

You said "It's impossible to increase their motivation no matter how many people we do or do not torture." Well what about possibly DECREASING their motivation by not fuckin torturing them!?
Click to expand...

Their motivation has nothing to do with how we treat our prisoners. They love the debate on torture in America. It makes us look weak. They have no qualms about torturing any americans until death, for their own amusement and to outrage the public and anyone who would stand against them. We only cause "discomfort" to extract information to potentially save lives. Therefore, we still can claim the moral high ground, for what it's worth - nothing except some election soundbytes and percentage points. It has no bearing on the war on terror.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']How exactly to we stand? against whom? someone who cares? What exactly with this "stand" accomplish? You provide no rationale for making a stand if you admit they'll keep dragging bloody, headless bodies through the streets no matter what we choose to stand or sit for.

No, the benefits have not been spelled out in this or any other thread. Please spell them for me. Fringe believers will join our side instead of theirs? I find that hard to believe - and even harder to prove. But, it's nice to dream of a nice world where we all lay down our arms and make nice-nice.

I really don't care if you've visited the "region" or not. I was making light of your tactic of claiming I don't know that prisons aren't real deterrents because I've probably never visited one. My point was about a negative deterrent. They won't be afraid to conspire against us because we torture, they'll consider the penalty for failure and capture a vacation instead of punishment. It's like an incentive to attack us. Die as a martyr get 42 virgins. Get caught and get free american healthcare. WIN-WIN !!

Their motivation has nothing to do with how we treat our prisoners. They love the debate on torture in America. It makes us look weak. They have no qualms about torturing any americans until death, for their own amusement and to outrage the public and anyone who would stand against them. We only cause "discomfort" to extract information to potentially save lives. Therefore, we still can claim the moral high ground, for what it's worth - nothing except some election soundbytes and percentage points. It has no bearing on the war on terror.[/quote]

As to what benefits we gain by not torturing people, I liked how el put it when he said "You are forgetting there are people in this world other than "them and us." A lot of these people are predisposed toward supporting those who respect things like the Geneva Conventions (pretty much all the democracies in the world). By forfeiting the moral high ground and sinking to the level of those who torture and behead people, we are alienating a large base of support in our fight against extremism. It also makes it harder for us to credibly criticize countries like Egypt and Syria, who routinely use torture, for their transgressions."

This effectively answers your first questions about how do we stand, against whom, and who it matters to. So we will chalk this up to (1) We gain international credibility and respect. Through our actions, we demonstrate that torture is wrong and will not be tolerated in our country. (2) We are a more moral, civilized, humane country. (3) We send a message to our own citizens that what makes our country great is not our army, economy, celebrities, infrastructure, but our IDEALS and our BELIEFS. (4) (the biggest benefit IMO) Torture is just wrong. Humans should not torture other humans. It is a basic, fundamental civil right (not derived from any man-made law) that a person has the right to be free from torture. You made this point for me when you said "...it's nice to dream of a nice world where we all lay down our arms and make nice-nice..." or, in other words, it will make our world a better place.

As to what detriments we suffer by not torturing people, there are none. You mentioned the information we gain however research has time and time again shown that no reliable information ever comes from torture. Support for this can already be found in this thread on the first page re: McCain.

You said "They love the debate on torture in America. It makes us look weak." Debate, discussion, and thought could never make a country look weak. Rash, knee jerk reactions on the other hand...get us into wars in Iraq.

So there, I did my job. Now it's your turn to outline for me the detriments of ceasing our torture practices. Good luck!
 
"I do not love the bright sword for it's sharpness, nor the arrow for it's swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
 
I watched an interesting program on torture on The History Channel last night. It was their Modern Marvels program, IIRC.

They were talking about Pol Pot in Cambodia and the S-21 prison/torture zone. It is estimated 15,000-17,000 entered and on 6 or 7 lived to tell about it. The things those people went through were unreal. Forced to eat human feces, having urine and iodine poured down their nostrils while hanging upside down, skinning them alive. Whatever your views are about torture, I think it was a program everyone should see. The cruelty was beyond anything Hitler or Saddam probably did.

Now, I know there are different levels of "torture" and that even sleep deprevation is considered torture by many. My main concern is that once you take one step, what is really there to prevent another step? Not evey person we capture is an enemy to the US and not every person we let go is a friend. It's an unenviable task either way. I think we all have had moments where we wanted to whoop someone's ass, but I couldn't live with myself if I was asked/forced to torture someone.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']I'm an ends justify the means kind of guy. If torture is the most efficient way to achieve a particular goal, go for it.[/quote]

-Machiavelli

Nobody has yet convinced me that torture achieves any goals or produces any desirable ends.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']-Machiavelli

Nobody has yet convinced me that torture achieves any goals or produces any desirable ends.[/quote]

It can achieve a goal in the minds of the torturer, but the information will be unreliable. People will say anything for the torture to stop. The goal may simply be to break the will of people and instill fear. My favorite episodes of Star Trek: TNG deal with torture and are really good for people to watch who don't want to see or hear about the real thing.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']-Machiavelli

Nobody has yet convinced me that torture achieves any goals or produces any desirable ends.[/QUOTE]
Oh theres quite a few goals torture can achieve.

-Causing a mental breakdown
-Satisfying revenge
-Setting an example to others to keep them in check
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']Oh theres quite a few goals torture can achieve.

-Causing a mental breakdown
-Satisfying revenge
-Setting an example to others to keep them in check[/quote]

I did not mean in the context of the torturer, I meant in the context of a society that condones it. Sure, it accomplishes goals to the one feeling vengeful and the sadist, but these are not benefitting the sovereign in any way.

You're right when you say it sets an example, but not in that it keeps others in check. We are setting an example of is how America does not recognize human rights (and therefore induce/justify others in following our example).

Again, Nobody has yet convinced me that torture achieves any goals or produces any desirable ends in the context of our contry's interests.

I dont think torture keeps anybody in check, on the contrary I think it fuels anti-American sentiment and brings more hatred and therefore aggression upon us.

A while ago I posted "So there, I did my job. Now it's your turn to outline for me the detriments of ceasing our torture practices. Good luck!" I'm still waiting on ya Bmull...or anyone else that wants a crack.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']As a means of extracting information it isn't reliable.[/QUOTE]
Obviously I have no personal experience with this, but I'd think it'd be pretty reliable at extracting information. Now the validity of the information might be brought into question, but I think there would be a better way to get valid information. Torture could be used to make someone say something you want them to, or sign their name to something etc. so you can create the information you want them to have given anyway.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I did not mean in the context of the torturer, I meant in the context of a society that condones it. Sure, it accomplishes goals to the one feeling vengeful and the sadist, but these are not benefitting the sovereign in any way.
[/QUOTE]
Scenario time then.

Country X is warring with country Y. Country Y says they will stop warring with X if the leader of X will sign a peace treaty. Country Y refuses.

Country X captures and tortures country Y's leader until he signs the treaty, who is then executed and the whole thing is covered up.


For fun , heres another.

You need the leader of country Y to say something to his people to stop the war in addition to the signature. Mental torture so that he can be controlled to say what you want while looking physically ok would either make his statements seem a little more believable, or cause fear in his followers that if even their great leader could be broken... what the hell would happen to me?


And these scenarios are being optimistic that something like that would be used to end a war and assuming that it could work flawlessly. Far more likely, it would be used in personal gain of resources, be it weapons, material, or whatever.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']Scenario time then.

Country X is warring with country Y. Country Y says they will stop warring with X if the leader of X will sign a peace treaty. Country Y refuses.

Country X captures and tortures country Y's leader until he signs the treaty, who is then executed and the whole thing is covered up.


For fun , heres another.

You need the leader of country Y to say something to his people to stop the war in addition to the signature. Mental torture so that he can be controlled to say what you want while looking physically ok would either make his statements seem a little more believable, or cause fear in his followers that if even their great leader could be broken... what the hell would happen to me?


And these scenarios are being optimistic that something like that would be used to end a war and assuming that it could work flawlessly. Far more likely, it would be used in personal gain of resources, be it weapons, material, or whatever.[/quote]

Your first scenario suffers the flaw that contracts entered into under duress are invalid. It also suffers the flaw that it is completely fuckin ridiculous, but we'll just go for VOID FOR DURESS!

Your second scenario is just completely fuckin ridiculous but lets just chalk them both up into the question: "Should torture be used to end a war?"

The argument goes assuming (and this is a VERY VERY big assumption) that it was even possible to use torture to end a war like in one of your fakakta hypotheticals, it is worth trading the torture of one for the lives of thousands. It kind of reminds me of the Atom bomb argument of 1945. Opponents would point out that you're trading away much more than one torture victim's human rights, your trading away your Country's humanity, ideals, morals,etc... and aren't these the very things your fighting over to begin with?
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Your first scenario suffers the flaw that contracts entered into under duress are invalid.

Your second scenario is just completely fuckin ridiculous but lets just chalk them both up into the question: "Should torture be used to end a war?"

Opponents would point out that you're trading away much more than one torture victim's human rights, your trading away your Country's humanity, ideals, morals,etc... and aren't these the very things your fighting over to begin with?[/QUOTE]
Who would know?

You're argument seems to come from projecting a "good" image to other countries. Fine. No one has to know about the torture except the few people involved, and theres always the lone-wolf argument to cover asses.

You don't have to be following the ideals, just be sure the public believes you are and your country will be better for it.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']Who would know?

You're argument seems to come from projecting a "good" image to other countries. Fine. No one has to know about the torture except the few people involved, and theres always the lone-wolf argument to cover asses.

You don't have to be following the ideals, just be sure the public believes you are and your country will be better for it.[/quote]

Usually, when somebody supports their argument with "Who would know? Nobody has to find out." it's usually a bad idea.

Moreover, do you think that the Bush administration didn't do everything in their power to keep their torture practices under wrap? My point is to answer you question "who would know?" The answer is everybody.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Usually, when somebody supports their argument with "Who would know? Nobody has to find out." it's usually a bad idea.

Moreover, do you think that the Bush administration didn't do everything in their power to keep their torture practices under wrap? My point is to answer you question "who would know?" The answer is everybody.[/QUOTE]
And do you think that every shady operation involving torture has been discovered?

I'd be willing to bet theres more than a few.

Of course there will be the occasional slip-up, thats to be expected.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']And do you think that every shady operation involving torture has been discovered?

I'd be willing to bet theres more than a few.

Of course there will be the occasional slip-up, thats to be expected.[/quote]

Even if only a very small minority of the torturings are found out about, the damage will still be done. Saying that not every incident will be found out does nothing to refute my points about the ones that are, the negative consequences still occur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top