Torture

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Are we talking about torture in any crime, or just terrorism. Because its completley different.

 

Terrorist I can understand. Although other countries who use torture would probably be able to get information from the suspects.

 

Regular Crimes just doesn't seem necessary. Most criminals will eventually break and "Truth Serums" aren't really needed.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

There is no difference.

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

Does it make a difference if you're in a time of war?

 

Say that one man holds the info for certain enemy plans - plans that, if known, could spare the lives of your soldiers, and even some enemy soldiers, by avoiding a large-scale battle, or something of the sort.

 

Is that different?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

No. It is a matter of principle, not convenience or benefit. We've signed a UN document stating that "exceptional circumstances such as a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." It has the force of law in the United States and we should abide by it even if no other nation does.

[Guest DrTom]

You absolutely are.

Hi, Mike.

 

But evidently your time spent listening to him has corrupted what little brain you ever had, and this is the result.

I think the man has a valid point that is worth discussing. It's an interesting moral question, and it's certain to attract opinions given the recent history of terrorists and America. How this constitutes his "leading me around by the nose," I really don't know.

 

I do disagree with his argument that it's legal, though, and I think his idea of a "torture warrant" is farcical. I just think it's an option worth considering when dealing with terrorists in a certain situation.

 

A yahoo comes up to you and says, "I'm a terrorist. I've planted a nuclear bomb somewhere under Manhattan and it's going to go off in two hours. I know how to disarm it but I won't tell you." What do you do?

Obviously, you have to investigate his claim. Law enforcement officials, by the very nature of their duties, must choose to investigate anything like that. He'd be hauled into the nearest police station or FBI building and interrogated. I think our law enforcement officers, especially on the federal level, could tell the difference between a real terrorist and a yahoo. If he turns out to be a yahoo, you throw him in jail for a good long time, and tell him to count his lucky stars that being an asshole isn't a federal crime. If it's a terrorist, then you try to get the information out of him.

 

Would you be willing to sodomise a male terrorist in order to make him feel humiliated and abused?

No.

 

What about female terrorists? There are a few. Are you going to rape them to get information?

Again, no.

 

The ends justify the means, don't they?

Not every means. Which is why I've said there are some things I wouldn't do, no matter the gravity of the situation or the importance of the information.

 

Willfully inflicting unendurable suffering on a human being is another.

You know, it is possible to get information out of people without "inflicting unendurable suffering" on them. So-called truth serums really don't work like most people think they do, but there's still the wet towel over the face, sensory deprivation, Chinese water torture, etc – things that don't do physical harm to someone, but can still be useful in getting them to talk.

 

Of course there's a chance they could be lying. But even that lie might have some clue in it, and that is better than no information at all.

 

. And you corrupted a point I've made countless times in the past in order to advocate your own evil agenda.

Whatever. I simply raised the point, and you got bitchy because you didn't like the context. Tough shit. How about you cry the river, then do us all a favor and jump in?

 

Accepting confessions extracted through evil means isn't the best idea, no, but it's nowhere near the same as committing such crimes ourselves.

Hmm, let's compare that with…

Jesus wept, if I ever hear of the shit you're advocating happening anywhere in the world "on behalf" of so much as one American citizen, let alone thousands, I swear by all the saints in heaven I will personally see to it that the animal responsible is brought to justice.

Now, if the US government accepts confessions gotten via torture elsewhere in the world, aren't they accepting them "on behalf of so much as one American citizen?" After all, a lot of the cases these confessions could be used in have to involve American citizens to some degree. I'm still waiting for your Holy Crusade to remove all the "moral degenerates," "jackasses," and "shitheads" in the government who have done the very thing you swore to crucify them for a day ago, only to say, "Well, shit happens" the next day. Again, pick a lane and stay in it.

 

What was amusing about it, shithead? The fact that America is better than other countries, or the fact that you want to destroy our principles to preserve our lives?

No, and no. I'll just say I remember a lot of exchanges we used to have over US foreign policy, Reagan's excursions into Libya, and Bill Clinton. You fought me tooth and nail on a lot of things concerning those topics, and it's amazing how much you've come into line with my opinions on them now, a few years later. In some cases, you're even more hardline and radical than I am. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's interesting to see such a sharp change in perspective on several issues in a few years' time.

 

Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Remember?

Whose liberty are we sacrificing? A terrorist's? You'll forgive me if I don't "cry a fucking river" over the undeserved rights of a worthless piece of shit. Well, maybe you won't, but it really doesn’t matter.

 

But it is not shared by the government, and it is not shared by the American people.

I'm glad you've been nominated to speak on behalf of so many people.

 

And you call yourself a conservative... what a fucking joke.

No, I've called myself a libertarian many times. I am a fiscal conservative, but I am a philosophical and social libertarian. Other people paint me with the conservative brush. I know you're used to twisting around what people said, and then using things they never wrote against them, but you really shouldn't let other people do your piss-poor thinking for you.

 

If you're going to play this fast and loose with the ideals of the Founding Fathers, kindly go register as a Democrat. You'll fit right in.

I've never voted for a Democrat in my life, and I don't intend to start anytime before I die. I remember when you used to be a lot more anti-Republican than you are now. It's a shame the rubes for whose benefit you're doing all these theatrics won't realize what a brazen hypocrite and terrible liar you are.

[Guest DrTom]

Ok so their fingers and toes are intact. What about their mind??

What about it? Do you think a fanatic's mind would be unraveled because we put a wet towel over his face? I think you're giving the practitioners of these methods far too much credit.

 

Besides, is it really our problem to worry about the mental state of someone who has sworn his life to bring about our destruction? I really don't have any sympahty for people whose plights were a result of conscious bad choices.

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

Ok so their fingers and toes are intact. What about their mind??

What about it? Do you think a fanatic's mind would be unraveled because we put a wet towel over his face? I think you're giving the practitioners of these methods far too much credit.

 

Why did you advocate it as a useful method of obtaining information then?

[Guest LooseCannon]

Sodium Amytol interviews have been done for a while now, and have been admitted in court cases for almost as long as we've understood the drug. It's accurate in the respect that it makes the subject more prone to answer questions truthfully according to their perceptions. Take also into account that the drug is a hallucinogenic barbiturate.

Really? I would've thought that that would run afoul of the prohibition against self-incrimination. This really surprises me.

 

I actually rather respect a good bit of Dershowitz' Constitutional scholarship. (I don't pay attention to some of the crackpot shit he's prone to say on Geraldo) I don't think this proposal is a good one though.

 

By the way, I'm pretty sure they actually have torture warrants in Israel, so that particular idea is perhaps not as farcical as it seems.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Hi, Mike.

Curses! You discovered my secret identity.

Now I'll just have to kill you.

 

you have to investigate his claim... I think our law enforcement officers, especially on the federal level, could tell the difference between a real terrorist and a yahoo.

In less than two hours? You flatter me, but no, I probably couldn't. I'm just not that good. No one is.

It takes time to conduct an investigation, and in the postulated scenario you don't have time. This is your own scenario, Tom. You said torture would be justified if he were a terrorist against whom we had incontrovertible evidence. Isn't his word good enough for you? A confession is the best evidence in open court; why isn't a confession good enough in this case as well? To be consistent you'd have to say hell yes, we should torture the yahoo. But then consistency has never been a hallmark of your pathetic arguments: witness the fact that you're chickening out of raping people to get your way but not electrocution - or is electrocution out of the question too? Where, really, do you draw the line? And why?

You have the burden of making your case here. I don't have to make mine. The courts already accept and uphold it. YOU have to explain what tortures you would countenance and why. Tell me, seriously, what's wrong with rape?

 

it is possible to get information out of people without "inflicting unendurable suffering" on them.

It certainly is. But ALL torture involves the infliction of UNENDURABLE suffering. You inflict pain to break a person's will. That is the express purpose and nature of all torture. That is its definition. If you intend to write yet another pompous long-winded reply, and I'm sure you do, could you kindly take an English class before you begin? It might make things easier.

 

there's a chance they could be lying.  But even that lie might have some clue in it, and that is better than no information at all.

You've never interrogated anyone, have you? No, of course you haven't. Your statement is the sort of utterly useless half-truth that makes people with experience throw their hands up in frustration. Yes, a lie is better than nothing at all. Untrustworthy information can be valuable. But it takes TIME to use it. And in the scenario for which you're advocating torture, NO TIME EXISTS.

 

I... raised the point, and you got bitchy because you didn't like the context.

Precisely so, dipshit. It's like saying filial love is honourable, and then claiming that if Hitler had had a son he would have had a moral obligation to kill Jews. The proper and necessary reply to people like you is this: Fuck off.

 

if the US government accepts confessions gotten via torture elsewhere in the world, aren't they accepting them "on behalf of so much as one American citizen?"

There is a DIFFERENCE between using information gained BY OTHERS through evil means WHICH THEY USE ALL THE TIME ANYWAY and COMMITTING EVIL ourselves. Do I have to use a jackhammer to pound this into your head?

 

I remember a lot of exchanges we used to have over US foreign policy, Reagan's excursions into Libya, and Bill Clinton.

A cheap, tawdry, and utterly ineffective shot. I might as well call your mom and have her send me a few pictures of you when you were two months old, post them, and then claim that no one should listen to what you have to say because you drooled and slobbered in the past and your vocabulary was limited to "Mama." It would make just as much sense. If you want to have a serious argument, argue the issues.

(If anyone's interested, my former stance on those subjects was:

1. Our foreign policies have caused harm which neither outweighs nor is outweighed by the good,

2. President Reagan shouldn't have attacked Libya in the way he did,

3. Bill Clinton is smart but smarmy, and could have been a much better President than he was if he had just had a shade of integrity to back up his salesmanship.

My views have evolved thus:

1. Our foreign policies have caused harm but it is outweighed by the good,

2. President Reagan shouldn't have attacked Libya in the way he did,

3. Bill Clinton is smart but smarmy, and could have been a much better President than he was if he had just had a shade of integrity to back up his salesmanship.

So, I shifted slightly on the first point, and haven't changed at all on the other two. What Tom finds "amusing" about this I still don't understand.)

 

Whose liberty are we sacrificing?  A terrorist's?

I said that the corollary was applicable, Tom: principles shouldn't sacrificed for life either. It's right there in the post. Do you see it now, darling? Good, darling. Now remember what Mummy said about that English class? Get yourself a pair of glasses on the way. There's my bright little boy.

 

I'm glad you've been nominated to speak on behalf of so many people.

I was appointed, but thanks. So am I.

 

I am a philosophical and social libertarian.  Other people paint me with the conservative brush.

My bad. Sorry for imputing wishful virtue to you. I won't make that mistake again.

 

I remember when you used to be a lot more anti-Republican than you are now.

Hypocrisy is defined as using one standard to judge yourself and another standard to judge others. That is not what I am doing now and it is not something I have ever done in the past. I don't think even an illiterate piece of shit like you would claim that; you're simply confused by any word with more than two syllables. Here's a handy reference: we don't call people who learn from their mistakes "hypocrites." We call them the smart people. The only people who never make mistakes are those who have no courage.

And, for the record, I still disagree with the GOP on a shitload of issues, not in degree but in substance: guns, abortion, the drug war, and the insanity defence, to name just a few. But one day I woke up and realised I disagree with the Democrats on much, much more.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Do you think a fanatic's mind would be unraveled because we put a wet towel over his face?

I think you're still unclear on the definition of torture. Let's try this one more time:

 

TORTURE IS THE DELIBERATE INFLICTION OF SUFFERING FOR ONE OR BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:

a) TO CHANGE A PERSON'S VALUES

b) FOR SELF-GRATIFICATION

 

Sheesh. I hope the letters were big enough for you to read that time.

 

So which is it? Do you or don't you want to inflict suffering on people to change their minds? That is how torture works: someone refuses to give you information because his values prohibit it. You make him suffer until he changes his mind. There is no way around this. Torture forcibly destroys personality, beliefs, and values. That is its purpose.

 

Or are you saying that you don't want to change a terrorist's value system by torture; you just want to jerk off while you watch?

 

Besides, is it really our problem to worry about the mental state of someone who has sworn his life to bring about our destruction?

Basic human dignity is not a right that is granted by law. According to our Declaration of Independence, it is granted by the Creator, and no one can ever take it away from anyone for any reason. But please, keep trampling all over the words of the fathers of our country if you wish. As I said, it can only help you in your new home in the Democratic Party.

May I ask how you intend to shred the Fifth Amendment, by the way? Or do you just not care about punishing terrorists for their crimes?

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

This all made me think of an idea in Plato's Republic: "Justice is doing good to your friends and harming your enemies." For those of you who've never read the book, just know that Plato (speaking through Socrates) reftues this point on several claims, not the least of which is the idea that by harming someone, you make them (and yourself) less just, and it is never right to decrease someone's justice, or "human excellence." That is, allegedly, something a good person would never do. I think, in that context, torture can never be considered right. Not saying I agree or disagree; they say that Plato was a fairly smart man, and I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

As for me personally, I think that if we knew the torture would yield accurate information, the ends would justify the means. At that point, you have two options: you're either ruining one life, through torture, or you're potentially ruining (and even losing) many lives. To me, letting the many suffer in the name of the rights of one is immoral. This, however, is only assuming we could guarantee torture's effectiveness, so take it with a very large grain of salt.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

letting the many suffer in the name of the rights of one is immoral. This, however, is only assuming we could guarantee torture's effectiveness

Morality and effectiveness are not linked in any way. If torture is immoral, it is immoral whether it works or not. It has less to do with the rights of the terrorist (which I'm perfectly willing to, and do, circumscribe sharply) and more to do with the nature of our society. We do not treat human beings like animals. We make a distinction between man and beast. The latter may be used and objectified for utility; the former may not. Ever. It is an act of pure evil that diminishes our common humanity and makes our cause a matter of self-interest, us and them, rather than good and evil - which is the way the President sees it. And so do I.

 

It really is that simple.

[Guest EricMM]

To me torture and rape are two bad things. I would not condone rape any more than I would torture and vice versa. Even if the person being raped is a bad person, it is still bad. A rapist is always a rapist. A torturer is always a torturer.

 

It's not that people have a right not to be tortured, as much as it is that torture is an inhumane crime.

 

This couldn't be any more clear.

[Guest DrTom]

All right.

 

After a good deal of thought, and some good old-fashioned research, I have decided that torture shouldn't be used, even in the case of saving lives. I always knew it was evil, but I thought its potential effectiveness could temper that. But this is, above all things, a free country and society, and the last best hope for freedom, democracy, liberty, and civilization in the world, and it's not worth pissing all of that away to put the screws to someone in the name of information.

 

I still think we should do all we can to save lives (which was the original purpose of my bringing the potential use of torture into this). While we might have to roll up our sleeves and bloody our hands in the name of saving lives, we shouldn't sell our souls and flush our values down the crapper in the process.

[Guest DrTom]

Those Democrat shots were REALLY below the belt, though. Hell, being called a "shithead," a "dipshit," "evil," an "asshole," and a "moral degenerate" are all preferable to being lumped into the Democratic lot. IS NOTHING SACRED ANYMORE, BAH GAWD?!

 

Dr. Tom

Philosophical libertarian (note the small L)

Republican voter

[Guest Some Guy]

Those Democrat shots were REALLY below the belt, though. Hell, being called a "shithead," a "dipshit," "evil," an "asshole," and a "moral degenerate" are all preferable to being lumped into the Democratic lot. IS NOTHING SACRED ANYMORE, BAH GAWD?!

What's the difference? Or is it easier to handle the insults one ny one ratehr than being called a Democrat and have to take them at the same time in just one word?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Good for you, Tom. <g> I apologise for using the D-word. That was way over the line.

 

 

 

What's the lesson here, kids? Never EVER trust anything a liberal says.

[Guest DrTom]

Or is it easier to handle the insults one ny one ratehr than being called a Democrat and have to take them at the same time in just one word?

 

That's it precisely. If you call me a "shithead," I can process that. But if you call me a "Democrat," there are so many awful connotations tied up in that word, it's enough to make a body's head spin. I just end up staring at the screen and counting the negative virtues such a title would force me to possess. Before long, the calculator has to come out, and I just walk away in frustration.

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

Morality and effectiveness are not linked in any way.

That's not what I'm saying at all. If torture saved the lives of everyone on Earth, the act would still be immoral. What I'm saying is that if one new that, by torturing someone, they would save the lives of thousands (or even just several) of innocent people, and that person chooses not to use torture, they are in essence letting the innocent ones die, and to me, that's more morally reprehensible than torturing someone. It's a sin of omission, essentially. But like I said, this is all a theoretical example, because torture does not guarantee results. So take it with a grain of salt. In actuality, torture does not yield guaranteed results, as per the reasons outlined in this thread, and thus it should not be used.

 

This is just my personal moral stance. Don't flame me for it; I'm not trying to pass this off as universal fact, and many would disagree, but this is how I feel on the issue.

[Guest EricMM]

Well there's a difference between personal feeling and U.S. policy, let's leave it at that

[Guest HoffmanHBK]

No, that's part of my point. Given the reality of the situation, I'd never recommend torture in any form as U.S. policy. To clarify.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

if one new that, by torturing someone, they would save the lives of thousands (or even just several) of innocent people, and that person chooses not to use torture, they are in essence letting the innocent ones die... that's more morally reprehensible than torturing someone

You are placing blame incorrectly. In your example, the terrorists who kill those innocents are the ones who are guilty of murder.

 

"I suggest, gentlemen, that the difficulty is not so much to escape death; the real difficulty is to escape from doing wrong, which is far more fleet of foot. In this present instance, I, the slow old man, have been overtaken by the slower of the two, but my accusers, who are clever and quick, have been overtaken by the faster - by iniquity. When I leave this court I shall go away condemned by you to death, but they will go away convicted by truth herself of depravity and wickedness."

- Plato, Apologia