Torture

[_The Nehor]

I want to know what each and every one of you would do if it were your child's life at stake.

I think that is a fair question.

Scare the living hell out of that bastard.

[_asbestosman]

If we allow water boarding in order to save American lives, does that our enemies are justified in using water boarding on US soldiers they capture in order to save their country's lives?

It is my understanding that we do not target civilians, so perhaps there is an asymetry there. However, would we still justify torture if no American civilians are in danger, but the military is?

For those who would do anything to save their child but yet are Christians, ask yourself one very important question: Why didn' God spare His Son that sort of torture. By no means am I saying that torture is always wrong. Rather I am saying that perhaps there are long-term costs which we do not or cannot well consider. The inability of humans to really appreciate the long-term goals is a large reason that we have consumer debt up to our ears. People generally prefer $100 now to $100,000 after 10 years.

Now, perhaps perhaps there is a case to be made for torture. I, for one, am not so sure. Then again, I do think that sometimes war and death is a necessary evil. I am no pacifist. Perahps then torture is simply another step down the path of necessary evils. I would that we lived in a world where torture was not seen as a tempting choice for some very irksome problems. I would that the same were true of war.

[_The Nehor]

If we allow water boarding in order to save American lives, does that our enemies are justified in using water boarding on US soldiers they capture in order to save their country's lives?
It is my understanding that we do not target civilians, so perhaps there is an asymetry there. However, would we still justify torture if no American civilians are in danger, but the military is?

I don't understand the division we make between military and civilian. Does a uniform and a standardized weapon really devalue a life to that degree?

[_moksha]

Is it immoral to use torture if the end result is saved lives?

So you round up people who may or may not know anything and torture them for information that may or may not save any lives. I think in Central America they used torture on suspects both for fishing expeditions for information, but also for punishment and perhaps sometimes just because they liked doing it.

[_dartagnan]

The image of CIA agents running around torturing people is a silly caricature of what I said, and you know it.

If I knew it, I wouldn't have said it. You said "running around using violence," and that was the first image that popped in my head. So who did you have in mind here?

Redemptive violence has become part of the American ethos, whether it be the American Revelation, the Civil War, the Iraq war, or torture.

We're talking about the value of human life. Is it more valuable than idealistic theory?

And unfortunately (to put something of a utilitarian spin on my idealistic ethic) we are finding that violence begets violence. If we really want a world where there's no violence, the first step is to avoid giving people excuses for it.

So by that logic, we should never consider even going to war under any circumstances. The only option left is a purely pacifistic policy. In a perfect world, that might make sense. But we have to accept the world we live in and adjust to it accordingly if we are to survive. Anyone who thinks babying the terrorists after they're captured, is somehow going to make them less violent, is pushing a dangerous drug.

When the use of violence is precluded, one frequently surprises oneself by finding redemptive solutions one might not otherwise have considered.

And you think other solutions have not been tested? Why would you think that? Water-boarding is a last resort, but a necessary one because nothing else works. What is your evidence that non-violent redemptive solutions exist?

I just don't see how you can fault the US government for trying to save the lives of its citizens at the expense of a psychopath's comfort.

You're right about one thing though. This "If we do this we are no better than they" bit, really is cliché. I just do not think it is logical on any level at all. I was just wondering if anyone who here could make a decent case against torture, logically speaking. You seem to have faith in it the same way a Mormon has faith in the Church. You can't really make much sense of it, but you believe it is the way to go.

I admit that there are limits even to my idealism. In the Jack Bauer scenario where there's a nuke going off in LA in 24 hours and we're trying to find out where it is, I'd dunk the bastard.

Well, wait a minute. So you agree that water-boarding should be a legal method of interrogation under certain circumstances? If the democrats had their way, Jack Bauer would NEVER be able to save Los Angeles from destruction.

But in cases where there is no such clear goal, I simply can't condone the use of violence.

I don't know why you say there is no clear goal. The goal seems clear enough to me. The goal is to obtain valuable information in order to save lives. We're at war right now and we have prisoners who have such information. Water-boarding techniques have apparently saved lives. So why abandon it? Because it will make more people violent (violence begs more violence)? I don't see anyone following through with this argument. It just seems to be nothing more than assertion. Has anyone become violent because water-boarding became public knowledge?

And I can't vote for anyone who does. I'm sorry you disagree, but here I stand.

I know most people here probably disagree, I just wanted to understand the logic. To me it is entirely illogical and even immoral to suggest the immediate comfort of a terrorist is more important than human lives. I know that is not what you believe, but that is how your idealism would prioritize the two, whether you realize it or not. If saving innocent lives at the expense of a terrorist's immediate comfort is not something worth doing, then what is?

[_dartagnan]

If we allow water boarding in order to save American lives, does that our enemies are justified in using water boarding on US soldiers they capture in order to save their country's lives?

We can only hope. It would be a great improvement over beheading via pocket knife.

So you round up people who may or may not know anything and torture them for information that may or may not save any lives.

You're talking about something entirely different. Arbitrarily rounding people up? Come on.

The presumption here is that someone who has life-saving information, is in the custody of intelligence officials. What should the law be in extracting that information?

[_asbestosman]

I don't understand the division we make between military and civilian. Does a uniform and a standardized weapon really devalue a life to that degree?

It does not change the value of the life. It changes the how threatening it is to the enemy and hence how understandable it might be for an enemy to try and take said life. I do not like it when the enemy kills our troops, but I like it even less when the enemy kills unarmed children who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

These are questions I pose and possible stances one may take, not stances I necessarily take myself.

[_asbestosman]

We're talking about the value of human life. Is it more valuable than idealistic theory?

There are some things I value more than human life. Freedom is one of them.

If saving innocent lives at the expense of a terrorist's immediate comfort is not something worth doing, then what is?

Certainly posed that way it makes some sense. I think, for example, that saving lives at the expense of an enemy's comfort while at war is justifiable. However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of using torture. While I cannot immediately point to long-term consequences, I am concerned that there are some. That I cannot express them is perhaps evidence that my misgivings are unfounded.

I think part of my concern is tyring to imagine what I's like if the shoe were on the other foot. If I were fighting country X and country X had the same policy on torture as I do, what would my policy be? Perhaps the answer is merely what you suggested--that water boarding would be preferable to beheadings.

[_Bond...James Bond]

(Didn't we have this conversation recently?)

Anyways...I think that every situation is unique, and that it will be dependent on the person being asked, the number of people who can be helped, and the type of torture to be used.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

From Reservoir Dogs:

Nice Guy Eddie: If you ******** beat this ***** long enough, he'll tell you he started the ******* Chicago fire, now that don't necessarily make it ******* so!

You know it's surprising to me that we have all these super-secret CIA men carrying out these supposed clandestine acts, but it still leaks to the press. You'd think they could keep their own from spilling their guts.