Should toturing be allowed?

[SleeplessWanderer]

U.S. Government tortures Americans

Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago, was a whistle-blower who tipped off the F.B.I. to suspicious activity at the company where he worked, including possible weapons trafficking. He was arrested and held for 97 days — shackled and blindfolded, prevented from sleeping by blaring music and round-the-clock lights.

Read more here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/opinion/20wed1.html?_r=1&ex=157680000&en=5f25ce444fa239f2&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg&oref=slogin)


Should it be allowed?

[Phenom]

Torturing I view as necessary.

Let's look at it in a different Scenario.

If your wife was held captive. But you found a man who knew and was part of this crime, and you caught him. Your chance of getting the information through torture was very promising. Or you can turn him in to the police, and possibly never find out where your wife is.

taking the risky yet promising route, you get a knife, and threaten to cut each finger off the suspect who knows the place of your wife. Every time he doesn't give a good answer, you cut off a finger.

If he doesn't give you an answer, at this point there is not much you can do.
However, once answer is given, you know it was worth it.

[rokin91]

I don't think that extreme torturing is the right way to find out the information needed, since it is cruel and painful. There are other ways of finding the truth.

Torturing is a very promising way of getting what is needed... but it's cruel!

Maybe torturing should be done to a certain extent.

[Phenom]

yes I do agree with you on this one.

but if you're loved ones are at stake

I Wonder how far you'd go

[FellowCitizen]

I think torturing is necessary if the national security is at risk

[Beatleworld]

yeah i agree, torturing is necessary for national security. however, when it's about something little, i suppose it's not good.

[n0spam4me]

There is a SERIOUS problem here, in that a suspect, is judged to have INFORMATION that is vital to (whatever...) and so said suspect is subjected to all sorts of brutal treatement at the hands of the people (or their agents) who have judged this individual to have somekinda INFORMATION.
This is a VERY dangerious state of affairs, The suspect will keep telling his captors "I have NO INFORMATION, I know NOTHING of what you seek" and the interigator, will make a judgement that the suspect is lying and administer torture, HOWEVER, what if the interigator is WRONG and they really and truly have the WRONG person in custody?

Check out the GENEVA CONVENTION and note that because the U.S.A. has signed on to these agreements, these rules have force of LAW in the U.S.A. and apply not only to US citizens but to anyone that any agent of the U.S.A. may capture.

GEORGE W. BUSH is an outlaw!

Check out the Military Commissions (un-natural) ACT
and look up what EX POST FACTO law is!

Interesting stuff, no?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

[Freethinker]

The argument for torture is that when time is crucial it is the most expediant means to find the truth. In fact torture is the most expediant means the get the torture victm to say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear.Allthough the two are not mutually exclusive they are not the same either.
It has always seemed to me that those who take a pro-torture stand are curiously a litte too anxious to inflict pain on another. They take great delght in discribing the minute details of the unlikly scenario as well as the sadisticly well thought out means by which the would like to extract the supposedly time sensitive information.
They just sound more like sadeists looking for an excuse to apply their twisted interests than someone looking for a successful outcome to a bad situation.
I would ask anyone to whom torture sounds like a good idea,to re examine their own dark motivations before expressing their agreement with techniques that not only degrade the morallity of those who condone it, but the practice of wich has shown not to produce desired results.

[Sgt Schultz]

The argument for torture is that when time is crucial it is the most expediant means to find the truth. In fact torture is the most expediant means the get the torture victm to say what he thinks the torturer wants to hear.Allthough the two are not mutually exclusive they are not the same either.
It has always seemed to me that those who take a pro-torture stand are curiously a litte too anxious to inflict pain on another. They take great delght in discribing the minute details of the unlikly scenario as well as the sadisticly well thought out means by which the would like to extract the supposedly time sensitive information.
They just sound more like sadeists looking for an excuse to apply their twisted interests than someone looking for a successful outcome to a bad situation.
I would ask anyone to whom torture sounds like a good idea,to re examine their own dark motivations before expressing their agreement with techniques that not only degrade the morallity of those who condone it, but the practice of wich has shown not to produce desired results.

I too have found that many who espouse torture are really just looking to exact some sort of revenge, punishment or to gain a feeling of power over another human being.

[top gun]

Torturing I view as necessary.

Let's look at it in a different Scenario.

If your wife was held captive. But you found a man who knew and was part of this crime, and you caught him. Your chance of getting the information through torture was very promising. Or you can turn him in to the police, and possibly never find out where your wife is.

taking the risky yet promising route, you get a knife, and threaten to cut each finger off the suspect who knows the place of your wife. Every time he doesn't give a good answer, you cut off a finger.

If he doesn't give you an answer, at this point there is not much you can do.
However, once answer is given, you know it was worth it.

I understand what you're saying here... if all those things happened in just that way... your wife or child... the person WAS part of the crime... all these things being facts makes some difference in the thought process.

But I think we're talking about in general... and as far as an interogation tool in the military. In those cases I think you have to say no. And the reason is to try and set a standard that other countries must follow for your captured soldiers or face the real possibility of war crimes charges.

[dahermit]

If we accept torture as a legitimate way of extracting information then what happens if the tortured person dies from the stress of being tortured? Now it would seem that you would have to justify murder as a means of extracting information also.

[Rokerijdude11]

How easily it appears that most of you entirely Glossed over the EXAMPLE as given and chose to respond to something else instead ...

one of you even went as far as to totally dismiss it in favor of you OWN scenario
the story here is about an AMERICAN citizen who was a whistleblower and was HARRASSED and Tortured for being a whistleblower

not killing anyone or raping them or an alqueada operative An American Citizen a NAVY veteran no less......

is it right? that was the question asked

[top gun]

How easily it appears that most of you entirely Glossed over the EXAMPLE as given and chose to respond to something else instead ...

one of you even went as far as to totally dismiss it in favor of you OWN scenario
the story here is about an AMERICAN citizen who was a whistleblower and was HARRASSED and Tortured for being a whistleblower

not killing anyone or raping them or an alqueada operative An American Citizen a NAVY veteran no less......

is it right? that was the question asked

I think this is what happened. There was an original post as you've stated. But then Phenom (an Administrator) gave another different scenario. People then responded to both. I think you can see what happened below. It wasn't Glossing over. It was just replying to different scenarios.:)

Torturing I view as necessary.

Let's look at it in a different Scenario.

If your wife was held captive. But you found a man who knew and was part of this crime, and you caught him. Your chance of getting the information through torture was very promising. Or you can turn him in to the police, and possibly never find out where your wife is.

taking the risky yet promising route, you get a knife, and threaten to cut each finger off the suspect who knows the place of your wife. Every time he doesn't give a good answer, you cut off a finger.

If he doesn't give you an answer, at this point there is not much you can do.
However, once answer is given, you know it was worth it.

[Rokerijdude11]

Well in Response to the ORIGINAL post and in respecting that author..... I answer the question with a Resounding NO, it is NOT RIGHT for this to happen to an American citizen....I feel that the lines have deliberatly been blurred, and this is going to only get worse as time goes on

and the American people are silent................or they read or hear about it, and they simply dont care about this information......so it will continue

[lipmonkey]

I don't feel torture is right and I have read few studies that suggest it isn't an effective method of getting reliable information, as the victim tells his interrogators anything they want to hear just to get them to stop.

[JavaBlack]

Torture should never be allowed. The ticking-time-bomb-scenarios don't happen... and even if they did, torture would not necessarily get us results on time. Torture has never been proven to get good results... just results. And results that are not good are generally bad in that they are distractions.
Torture does nothing but make us look bad.

If we are truly to be a beacon for democracy and liberty, we should have the highest restrictions on ourselves for our treatment of detainees and live up to our high expectations. If we stand for human rights, we should resemble what we stand for.

[USMC the Almighty]

Torture has never been proven to get good results...



That's not true at all.

U.S. interrogators encouraged Khalid Sheik Mohammed to detail how he masterminded al-Qaeda’s September 11 attacks through waterboarding. He then ratted out Hambali, the man behind the October 2002 Bali bombing that killed 202, and “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla.

Al-Qaeda honcho Abu Zubaida stayed quiet until interrogators stuck him in a cold room and blasted the corrosive music of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Zubaida cried uncle and began to talk. He helped America find terrorists Ramzi bin-al-Shibh, Amar-al-Faruq, Rahim al-Nashiri, and Muhammad al Darbi.

[dahermit]

How easily it appears that most of you entirely Glossed over the EXAMPLE as given and chose to respond to something else instead ...

one of you even went as far as to totally dismiss it in favor of you OWN scenario
the story here is about an AMERICAN citizen who was a whistleblower and was HARRASSED and Tortured for being a whistleblower
Of course it is wrong what happened to him...not only wrong, but many laws were broken not to mention his constitutional rights.

[vyo476]

Al-Qaeda honcho Abu Zubaida stayed quiet until interrogators stuck him in a cold room and blasted the corrosive music of the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

The small side of me that finds this funny really hopes that it was "Tell Me Baby."

[9sublime]

I heard it was eminem they played, and the music was 'so foreign the prisoners began screaming.' It is funny because I don't start banging my head against a wall when I hear bhangra.

I just had a look through my old eminem CD's (not really a fan anymore), and 'Guilty Conscience' or 'Kill you' could have been good choices.

[USMC the Almighty]

The small side of me that finds this funny really hopes that it was "Tell Me Baby."

Obviously, I'm a country music fan.

[Justinian]

I remember Eminem. He's closer to the icon of sin than a musician.

[9sublime]

You crack me up Justinian. This would probably be right up your street:


The True History of Pokemon


This article is intended to show the Good Christians of the world that the Pokemon phenomenon is nothing more than a message from the Devil, an oracle of Satanic influences designed to destroy the Youth of America.


The Word "Pokemon"
First, let us examine the word Pokemon itself. Common wisdom says Pokemon is an abbreviation for Pocket Monsters, but this is not true. Pokemon is in actuality a corruption of two Latin words, Pokos and Mono. Mono, is of course the origin of an identical English prefix indicating “one” or “single.” Pokos is a significantly more complex term. There is a joke circulating the Internet claiming that Pokemon actually means, "Buy all this Junk." while I have been unable to trace the source of this rumor, it has a foundation in truth that I doubt the original humorist intended.
Pokos itself is one of the older, and more obscure words in Latin. As far as can be determined, it originated in Northern Italy as the name for a local deity, also known as Pikat-shoo. The Italians who worshiped this god were polytheistic, and Pokos was their god of thunder and lightning. Most of this sect's gods were bestial in origin.

Little is known about this religion's place during the early days of the Roman Empire, but there is incidental evidence that most of the Emperors from Nero on worshiped Pokos. It wasn't until Constantine became a Christian that the Roman Empire began drifting from Pokos and his associated mythology.

As is the case with many Polytheistic religions, the gods were in constant battle, each one leveraging their unique abilities to defeat the weaker gods. The accounts of these battles consist of the gods forming complex alliances, attempting to line up the strengths of one side with the weaknesses of the other. There was no definitive "Good" or "Bad" gods engaged in the actual battles. It was believed that the high priests of this religion were the ones who convinced the gods to battle, orchestrating the alliances and swaying the favor of these deities with gifts and bribery. Pokos was considered one of the most powerful gods, because few could withstand a lightning based assault. The oldest authentic scroll containing information about this religion dates from the third century AD, and states that Pokos formed a permanent alliance with the Roman emperors, declaring them their favored "priests."

During the eighth century AD the mysterious underground religion that had influenced Roman Emperors since the dawn of the empire began to be called the "Cult of Pokos," as a reference to the close ties between Pokos and the Emperor.

The Pokos cult continued as a sub layer to the Roman empire until Constantine became the first Christian Emperor. It is commonly known that Conatantine received a vision of the cross, and ordered a white cross painted on the shields of his soldiers before he marched into a key battle. The 14th century Scroll of Pokos makes the claim that the opposing army had an image of Pokos himself on their battle flags, hoping to win the god's favor. While the legend certain supports a pagan connection with Pokemon, I must admit that there is only one source that makes this claim, and therefore must be taken as unsubstantiated.

There are scattered references to the Cult of Pokos. While I am working on a definitive history of the religion, for the purposes of this discussion I will just list the most significant events. Mind you, what I'm about to do is tantamount to summarizing all of American History in half a dozen bullet points, but this is an essay regarding Pokemon, not a full account of the history of Pokos.

1345 - Over 1,000 members of the Cult of Pokos are massacred by Christian Soldiers. This is the first known incident of discrimination against the cult since 23BC.
1357 - A massive migration of Pokos worshipers begins. Over the next 200 years most of the religion's practitioners move East. They believe they are following a millennia old pilgrim trail into what is now Modern Day India, where many remain to this day.
1699 - The Cult of Pokos enters Fudual Japan as an underground religion. An effort is made to bring the religion to the Emperor, but the "missionaries" are executed.
1734 - The 35 year old law banning the worship of Pokos is lifted. Rumors abound as to the reasoning behind this unexpected move, but there is no definitive answer.
1735 to 1900 - The Cult of Pokos experiences halting spurts of growth. By the mid 1800s, most of the Japan's intellectual and social upper tiers practice a hybrid form of Pokos/Emperor worship, where the Emperor is seen as a final arbitrator of all battles, and is even granted the ability to alter the lesser god's powers. This hybrid religion is believed to have died out after World War Two, while the Cult of Pokos continues to this day.
Please forgive me for completely ignoring the Western and Northern migrations that took place during the Medieval Era, but I think you can see the means by which the Pokos religion worked its way into a consumer product being sold by Japanese game makers.
The question I'm struggling to answer is this: Was Pokemon created as a tribute to Pokos, a means of bringing new worshipers into the fold? It's entirely possible Pokos was nothing more than a quaint old religion someone's grandmother was practicing when her grandson needed a product idea. On the other hand, the game could have been created by an actual member of the Cult of Pokos. I find the latter to be the more likely possibility, simply because of the startling and unsettling similarities between the way the Pokemon game is played, and the way Pokos was worshiped. If there is sufficient interest, I will write more on that connection.

Pokemon and Gambling:
The Pokemon-Gambling connection is a well known and heavily documented one. Pokemon is a "Magic" style card game. At it's simplest, each card is endowed with certain powers and weaknesses. Each player "attacks" the other by playing the card, and that player's card is either defeated or counters. Points are tallied, battles are played out and a victor emerges. The victor usually gets to keep some portion of the loser's cards. I do not intend to spend much time discussing this aspect of the Pokemon addiction. Instead I will refer you to the links below for a further look.
LAWSUIT SLAMS POKEMON AS BAD BET FOR ADDICTED KIDS - New York Post

Pokemon Cards are a Big Rip-Off! This page is one child's effort to spread the word about Pokemon. The page includes a series of quotes from Pokemon-Addicted gamblers. Some of the comments are very heart wrenching.

Pokemon, Burger King and Gluttony:
While I am not Catholic, I must admit there Seven Deadly sins are an excellent way to highlight the different kinds of temptation people face every day. Satan uses many things to control us, gambling and gluttony are two of them. The Pokemon Web site lists the details of an alliance between Burger King and Pokemon's supporters to turn the fast food restaurant into a gambling den, where Pokemon cards can be traded, bartered, won and lost like money in a Casino. It is a transparent effort to lure parents into thinking that there is nothing wrong with Pokemon gambling. They even encourage parents to take their children into a den of thieves so they can essentially be trained to drink their lives away while playing cards and other games of chance.
In the years to come, these Burger King Pokemon Sharks will replace the Topps cards with a deck of gambling cards. They will discard the Pepsi for Martinis and replace the Burger King grill smoke with the cigarette smoke from the thousand wasted lives that will surround them. Thank you Burger King. I am so grateful for this Card Shark Gaming room that I will be taking all my business to McDonnald's. I encourage all parents and civic minded citizens to similarly ban Burger King for their efforts in destroying the moral fiber of America's Youth.

[9sublime]

Let us examine some of the individual Pokemon characters.
I am afraid the grim forces behind Pokemon have forced me to remove this section of my essay. I had originally used scanned images of the Pokemon cards as examples, but was promptly contacted by Nintendo lawyers and told that I would be subject to legal action if I did not remove the offending material. I sent back a letter pointing out that most of the pokemon characters were based (abet some of them very loosely) on gods from three separate pagan religions, and were as such not subject to modern copyright laws. "It would be like Nintendo trying to copyright images of Zeus or Saturn," I said. I received a second letter reminding me that Marvel currently held a copyright on a god patterned after the Norse god Thor. As there are no lawyers in my parish, I decided it best to concede the legal battle until I had time to rewrite this section to be less dependent on graphical imagery.
Pokemon and the New World Order:
Many of you have probably read my previous articles on the New World Order. No, I am not talking about the professional wrestling media blitz being used by the Trilateral Comission to desensitize us to the terminology. Pat Robertson has much more to say about the real new world order than I, and is significantly more eloquent than myself in discussing it, but for those of you unfamiliar with the concepts I will give a thumbnail outline of the points relevant to Pokemon, as I discuss the subject.
Most of you are no doubt aware of the influx of Eastern ideas and thinking into Western Culture. Part of this influx of religions ideas have been collectively referred to as "New Age" thinking. New Age thinking is stereotypically associated with burned out left wing former hippies who smoke Marijuana and wander around with pony tails. Sadly, this is not the case. Eastern Meditation for example, is being used in a number of settings to lure people into the kinds of mental states usually used to contact spirit guides and familiars, AKA Demons.

The New World Order is a collective term that refers to several movements with common goals and common players. Essentially, China and Japan are the ideological center of a movement towards a one-world government. This movement is supported by the Trilateral Commission, collection of financial and political world leaders dedicated to the construction of this one-world government. All of the USA's presidents since Roosevelt have been members of this commission, as are the controlling parties behind Disney, Viacom and even Microsoft.

Moving in parallel to the one-world government is a cultural migration away from Western Civilization towards Eastern ideas. Judao - Christian concepts of God are being replaced with nature centered religions based on the occult. A more complete discussion of these topics can be found in the book Like Lambs to the Slaughter.

Sadly, few people know about these insidious plans. Outside of the average Right Wing Conservative Christian and the Christian Coalition, few people really know anything about it. One interesting book on the religious aspects of this New World Order can be found by clicking here.

In the larger scheme of things, Pokemon is actually a small portion of this New World Order. Look back at this article. What do you see? Pokemon uses imagery and ideas from a 3,000 pagan religion to teach america's youth to gamble, be greedy and loose contact with reality. It replaces everyday interaction with a surreal world of fanciful characters with magical powers. It is weakening the minds of America's youth, draining away time that would otherwise be spent in activities like football, baseball or Bible Study. In sort, it is weakening the Christian backbone of America. In the end, our children are left with a weakened grasp on reality, and have been conditioned to see things of a supernatural nature as a game. Just as Marijuana is often a "Gateway Drug" leading children to harder substances, so is Pokemon a Gateway paganism, leading children into, at best Agnosticism and at worst Satanism.

[steveox]

HELL YES!!! It should be allowed. The Nazis and Japs tortured our GIs back in WWII
North Koreans tortured our GIs back in 1950s
North Vietnam Army tortured our GIs back in 1960s
And now the Arabs are torturing our men & women in armed forces.

It seems to me if its ok for them to do it then its ok for US to do it too. Lets face it even the LAPD tourture suspects.

[9sublime]

Two wrong don't make a right, why sink to their level? You critise them for it and then say, actually we should be doing it...

If you don't think what they did was right, you shouldn't go to that level. You are going to get ripped apart, you are more immature than most people on this forum, your posts have very little substance to it. My 13 year old brother could come out with better posts, and write them more coherently too.

[steveox]

Thats the nature of politics.Not everyone is gonna agree with one another.I was expecting that. Not even the Democrats Nor the Republicans agree members in their own party. Look at Sen Trent Lott,Some republicans dont agree with him on immingration issues.

[9sublime]

Trust me, you are going to get eaten alive on this board though.

[Mare Tranquillity]

HELL YES!!! It should be allowed. The Nazis and Japs tortured our GIs back in WWII
North Koreans tortured our GIs back in 1950s
North Vietnam Army tortured our GIs back in 1960s
And now the Arabs are torturing our men & women in armed forces.

It seems to me if its ok for them to do it then its ok for US to do it too. Lets face it even the LAPD tourture suspects.

It was cruel and stupid for them to torture our soldiers, but it would be even worse for us to torture their soldiers now that we know how it feels to have our soldiers tortured.

George Washington refused to let his soldiers torture the British even though the British tortured ours. He said that not behaving that way is what set us apart from those people, if we did the same things that they do, then we are no different than they are. The struggle is to do what's right without regard to what other people do. There is no excuse for torture.

[steveox]

We tourture for a reason. To get INFO what Al Queda plans are. Tourture those prisoners helped saved thousands of american lives.How you think the FBI found out about the JFK Airport attack? It was though tourturing the prisoners at gitmo bay.

[Coyote]

We tourture for a reason. To get INFO what Al Queda plans are. Tourture those prisoners helped saved thousands of american lives.How you think the FBI found out about the JFK Airport attack? It was though tourturing the prisoners at gitmo bay.

You got a source for that?

[palerider]

You got a source for that?

I doubt that he has a source.

While I have never actually tortured anyone, we did act occasionally on information gathered by torture in Vietnam. If a person has the information you want, you can get it by torture, but if they don't, they will say whatever you want them to say to stop the pain. If you can be sure that you have someone who has the information you require, you can get the information from them, no doubt. But being sure you have the right person is a tough business and less than reliable.

There are plenty of psychological tactics that can be used without actually going to torture. I know that many would say that psychological pressure amounts to torture, but give the ones who would say that a choice between being kept awake by loud music and lights and having a few fingers broken, or smashed with a hammer and my bet is that they would opt for the psychological pressure.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I doubt that he has a source.

While I have never actually tortured anyone, we did act occasionally on information gathered by torture in Vietnam. If a person has the information you want, you can get it by torture, but if they don't, they will say whatever you want them to say to stop the pain. If you can be sure that you have someone who has the information you require, you can get the information from them, no doubt. But being sure you have the right person is a tough business and less than reliable.

There are plenty of psychological tactics that can be used without actually going to torture. I know that many would say that psychological pressure amounts to torture, but give the ones who would say that a choice between being kept awake by loud music and lights and having a few fingers broken, or smashed with a hammer and my bet is that they would opt for the psychological pressure.

You've presented from a fairly strong Christian perspective on many occasions so I was curious what you thought Jesus would say in this discussion about torture.

[drippinhun]

I have no problem with judicious torture during or just after battle to gather immediate information. But torture like we have pulled in Iraq for the most part is just sadistic crap.

[Coyote]

I doubt that he has a source.

While I have never actually tortured anyone, we did act occasionally on information gathered by torture in Vietnam. If a person has the information you want, you can get it by torture, but if they don't, they will say whatever you want them to say to stop the pain. If you can be sure that you have someone who has the information you require, you can get the information from them, no doubt. But being sure you have the right person is a tough business and less than reliable.

There are plenty of psychological tactics that can be used without actually going to torture. I know that many would say that psychological pressure amounts to torture, but give the ones who would say that a choice between being kept awake by loud music and lights and having a few fingers broken, or smashed with a hammer and my bet is that they would opt for the psychological pressure.

They say that evidence gained by torture is highly unreliable at best. I am quite sure I would say many things trying to hit the right thing in order to stop the pain. But that's just me. I don't have a problem so much with psychological pressure but I have serious problems with torture that leaves people dead or brutalized and I have seen no real evidence that such torture has produced reliable information.

[USMC the Almighty]

They say that evidence gained by torture is highly unreliable at best. I am quite sure I would say many things trying to hit the right thing in order to stop the pain. But that's just me. I don't have a problem so much with psychological pressure but I have serious problems with torture that leaves people dead or brutalized and I have seen no real evidence that such torture has produced reliable information.

I provided it earlier in the thread.

[palerider]

You've presented from a fairly strong Christian perspective on many occasions so I was curious what you thought Jesus would say in this discussion about torture.

I don't know. Would Jesus suggest that we simply stand by while terrorists explode bombs in market squares targeting women and children? Jesus told us to submit to governments and to accept that they held the power of the sword and that if one were innocent that one need not fear government but if one were guilty, they shoud fear the government as it was their duty to punish evil doers.

[palerider]

They say that evidence gained by torture is highly unreliable at best. I am quite sure I would say many things trying to hit the right thing in order to stop the pain. But that's just me. I don't have a problem so much with psychological pressure but I have serious problems with torture that leaves people dead or brutalized and I have seen no real evidence that such torture has produced reliable information.

It was my experience that when we acted on information that was in all likelyhood obtained by torture, that it was either spot on, or a complete wash. That would indicate to me that if a suspect had information then they gave it up at some point and if they didn't, they simply made up whatever they believed would end the pain.

Of course what I am telling you is only anecdote, but I believe that if one has information that it can be extracted. The dielemma comes with knowing whether or not the suspect is the right one and actually has the information that you want.

The whole reliability issue is one of having the right suspect more than the reliability of the information you get. If you have the right suspect, I believe you can trust the information that you get but if you have the wrong suspect, then everything you get will be a fabrication.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't know. Would Jesus suggest that we simply stand by while terrorists explode bombs in market squares targeting women and children? Jesus told us to submit to governments and to accept that they held the power of the sword and that if one were innocent that one need not fear government but if one were guilty, they shoud fear the government as it was their duty to punish evil doers.

So there is no moral issue? Wow. I think your choice to torture or stand by while "terrorists explode bombs in market squares targeting women and children" is what's called a "false choice" in that it implies that this is the only two options open to us.

My question was more oriented towards the idea that we have the right to decide who deserves torture, who deserves to have their body torn apart while they are living--much like Jesus had done to Him. I'm guessing that He would forbid it, but I'm not a Christian so my opinion doesn't count for much.

[palerider]

So there is no moral issue? Wow. I think your choice to torture or stand by while "terrorists explode bombs in market squares targeting women and children" is what's called a "false choice" in that it implies that this is the only two options open to us.

My question was more oriented towards the idea that we have the right to decide who deserves torture, who deserves to have their body torn apart while they are living--much like Jesus had done to Him. I'm guessing that He would forbid it, but I'm not a Christian so my opinion doesn't count for much.

You must not have read my posts very well. I clearly stated that knowing if you have the right person before you begin the torture is where the whole issue gets sticky. I certainly don't support torture in the form of a fishing expedition, but if one can be certain that one has the person with the information one is seeking, torture will certainly bring the information to the surface.

And I never said that there were only two choices. You were the one who gave only two choices...either Jesus would support torture, or he would not.

[Mare Tranquillity]

You must not have read my posts very well. I clearly stated that knowing if you have the right person before you begin the torture is where the whole issue gets sticky. I certainly don't support torture in the form of a fishing expedition, but if one can be certain that one has the person with the information one is seeking, torture will certainly bring the information to the surface.

And I never said that there were only two choices. You were the one who gave only two choices...either Jesus would support torture, or he would not.
I actually read your post very carefully. All torture is a fishing expedition, one cannot know anything with adequate certainty to justify torture. Look at the good, devout, and absolutely certain Christian people who tortured people to save their souls in the Inquisition. They were certain too, but the necessary level of certainty to justify torture is not available to human beings, we are too fallible.

The two choices were presented by you in the sentence: "Would Jesus suggest that we simply stand by while terrorists explode bombs in market squares targeting women and children?"

Just like the death penalty, torture leaves no room for error, once you torture someone there is no taking it back if you discover that you were wrong to do it. My position is that Jesus--having been tortured-- would not agree to let anyone be tortured for any reason. That is also my stand on the subject, and the two choices you offered in your sentence above are not the only ones possible.

[palerider]

I actually read your post very carefully. All torture is a fishing expedition, one cannot know anything with adequate certainty to justify torture. Look at the good, devout, and absolutely certain Christian people who tortured people to save their souls in the Inquisition. They were certain too, but the necessary level of certainty to justify torture is not available to human beings, we are too fallible.

Of course one can know with adequate certainty. To suggest otherwise is just silly. And the inquisition has nothing at all to do with today. By the way, no where near as many were killed during the inquisition as most people believe. Not even close.

Just like the death penalty, torture leaves no room for error, once you torture someone there is no taking it back if you discover that you were wrong to do it. My position is that Jesus--having been tortured-- would not agree to let anyone be tortured for any reason. That is also my stand on the subject, and the two choices you offered in your sentence above are not the only ones possible.


Your position on Jesus is nothing more than an emotional appeal that has as much validity as if I appealed to the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. And to suggest that because a thing happens to you is a valid reason to prevent it happening to anyone else is as silly as your first assumption.

And while I would support raising the bar with regard to evidence for capital punishment, I still believe the death penalty is appropriate punishment for some crimes as I believe torture is warranted under certain conditions.

[Coyote]

I totally oppose torture. Once you decide it's ok - you lose.

[vyo476]

I totally oppose torture. Once you decide it's ok - you lose.

The Romans did okay with it for about five hundred years.

[Coyote]

The Romans did okay with it for about five hundred years.

Ya, and look what happened to them.

[palerider]

Ya, and look what happened to them.

Torture wasn't their downfall. Taxation was.

As a side note, you should probably get your position straight with regard to your support of tearing living human beings limb from limb, who are not suspected of anyting at all before you begin to voice too loud an opinion about torturing those who may well have information that could save hundreds, possibly thousands of lives.

[Coyote]

Torture wasn't their downfall. Taxation was.

As a side note, you should probably get your position straight with regard to your support of tearing living human beings limb from limb, who are not suspected of anyting at all before you begin to voice too loud an opinion about torturing those who may well have information that could save hundreds, possibly thousands of lives.

Different issue.

[Coyote]

Torture wasn't their downfall. Taxation was.

As a side note, you should probably get your position straight with regard to your support of tearing living human beings limb from limb, who are not suspected of anyting at all before you begin to voice too loud an opinion about torturing those who may well have information that could save hundreds, possibly thousands of lives.

No, there downfall was actually a much more complicated affair then just taxation.

[palerider]

No, there downfall was actually a much more complicated affair then just taxation.

It boiled down to taxation. The excess taxation led to less land being titled and a general weakening of the lower classes who were, in reality, the ones who were the foundation of the empire. As they bent under rome's taxes, they became less concerned with the empire's ultimate success and supported local men who offered them more hope than rome.

[Coyote]

It boiled down to taxation. The excess taxation led to less land being titled and a general weakening of the lower classes who were, in reality, the ones who were the foundation of the empire. As they bent under rome's taxes, they became less concerned with the empire's ultimate success and supported local men who offered them more hope than rome.

Not according to what I've found. It would appear that there is not much consensus on any one overiding reason for Rome's fall though taxes - in the form of a highly corrupt and ineffective government did play a part.

From: http://www.usu.edu/markdamen/1320Hist&Civ/chapters/08ROMFAL.htm



Population. First of all, there's strong evidence of a steady decline in population across the entire Empire from the second century on. For example, peaking at around a million or so in the Classical Age, the population of the city of Rome gradually dropped over the course of the next few centuries, reaching a low point of a mere six thousand by the sixth century. The reasons for this drastic if incremental reduction in human resources are not clear, though many Romans' luxurious lifestyle and their concomitant disinterest in producing and raising children must have played some part. So did plagues, no doubt, as well as constant warfare on the frontiers and perhaps even lead-poisoning, evidenced in human skeletal remains recovered from Pompeii which show that the Romans there were indeed exposed to high concentrations of the lethal element. Nevertheless, it's unclear how widespread this problem was.

Economics. Second, economic data point to other factors which doubtlessly contributed to the situation. Well-documented among the travails of third-century Rome—over two centuries prior to its notorious "fall"—is a particularly long period of financial crisis which inaugurated the slow collapse of the economy in the West. This economic depression was due in large part to the failure of the Romans' system of conquest and enslavement. When the flow of cheap slaves began to dry up, estates throughout the Empire could no longer sustain the abuse of human resources on which they had formerly depended. So without any real industry or much agricultural machinery to work the land—Roman land-owners did know about water wheels and windmills but archaeologists have found evidence of very few being used in this period—the aristocrats of late Rome apparently watched the collapse of their economy and disdained practical matters such as retooling their farms to ensure their viability.

Politics. Finally, political affairs contributed to the difficulties plaguing late Rome. The general incompetence of emperors and the failure of traditional politics in the West led to a wretchedly corrupt political structure, characterized by an oppressive burden of taxation levied to support the growing army of soldier-barbari who were bribed—"employed" is too sophisticated a term for this practice—to fend off Rome's foes. This, in turn, led to inflation and debasing of Roman coinage, which bred a lethal mix of apathy and angst that inspired many Romans to flee politics and later the poleis ("city-states") of the Empire, the urban foundation on which rested most of ancient life. With that, actual power in Rome fell into the hands of local lords, and the concept of shared Roman civilization itself came under siege.

But states have survived disasters far worse than any or all of these. In sum, none of the theories or factors mentioned above explains why there's no simple answer to the simple question, "Why did Rome fall?" So, perhaps, it's not the answers that are flawed but the question itself. To a scholar, that demands an all-out Aristotelian response, a syllogism or analysis of the question in terms of its three principal elements: why, Rome, fell.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Of course one can know with adequate certainty. To suggest otherwise is just silly. And the inquisition has nothing at all to do with today. By the way, no where near as many were killed during the inquisition as most people believe. Not even close.
In my opinion, that is ego talking, no one in the Inquisition had adequate certainty and they all felt exactly like you do. I object to the overweening sense of rightness that would allow you to tear another human being into bloody shreds--that takes the same god-complex mindset as capital punishment. The number of people tortured to death is irrelevant (I did not address the number) because NO ONE should have been tortured then and NO ONE should be tortured now.

Your position on Jesus is nothing more than an emotional appeal that has as much validity as if I appealed to the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.
So you are NOT a Christian? I try to write to people within the context of their philosophical paradigm and I recall you writing in such a way as to suggest a Christian perspective--gay bashing. But if such is not the case and Jesus is just another Easter Bunny then fine and dandy.

And to suggest that because a thing happens to you is a valid reason to prevent it happening to anyone else is as silly as your first assumption.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. If something awful happens to me, why would I NOT want to prevent that from happening to others? Trying to reduce the unnecessary suffering in the world is "silly"?

And while I would support raising the bar with regard to evidence for capital punishment, I still believe the death penalty is appropriate punishment for some crimes as I believe torture is warranted under certain conditions.
Well, you are supremely confident and apparently mean as Hell, a sterotypical frightened human being struggling with a world that none of us understand. Compassion takes great courage, few people are capable of it, and therein lies the Alpha and Omega of Jesus' message. His compassion was what made His message magical and also what made it almost impossible for anyone to emulate.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Torture wasn't their downfall. Taxation was.

As a side note, you should probably get your position straight with regard to your support of tearing living human beings limb from limb, who are not suspected of anyting at all before you begin to voice too loud an opinion about torturing those who may well have information that could save hundreds, possibly thousands of lives.

Please note all the qualifiers in this bolded section, Mr. Rider is admitting that there is no way to KNOW, the best we can do is guess and torture to find out. Never should a people stoop that low a level. George Washington was right when he said that it isn't about what those people do, it's about what WE do, what we do sets up apart from those people. He absolutely forbade the torture of any British soldiers.

But Mr. Rider and his ilk are more frightened than George Washington was, so they are more willing to compromise their humanity in a futile attempt to save their lives.

[palerider]

Please note all the qualifiers in this bolded section, Mr. Rider is admitting that there is no way to KNOW, the best we can do is guess and torture to find out. Never should a people stoop that low a level. George Washington was right when he said that it isn't about what those people do, it's about what WE do, what we do sets up apart from those people. He absolutely forbade the torture of any British soldiers.

But Mr. Rider and his ilk are more frightened than George Washington was, so they are more willing to compromise their humanity in a futile attempt to save their lives.

So if you know that a nuclear or biological device has been planted and set to detonate, and you have a couple of suspects who test positive for handling the material that your source has informed you that the device is made of and your suspects say that they know nothing, you are prepared to just stand by and wait for it to go off and when it does, let them go because they said that they didn't know anything about it?

By the way. Read your history. George Washington personally ordered at least 3 traitors hung who were caught before they were able to carry out their missions. Good old George was clearly more worried about protecting his people than the civil rights of traitors and murderers.

[Mare Tranquillity]

So if you know that a nuclear or biological device has been planted and set to detonate, and you have a couple of suspects who test positive for handling the material that your source has informed you that the device is made of and your suspects say that they know nothing, you are prepared to just stand by and wait for it to go off and when it does, let them go because they said that they didn't know anything about it?

By the way. Read your history. George Washington personally ordered at least 3 traitors hung who were caught before they were able to carry out their missions. Good old George was clearly more worried about protecting his people than the civil rights of traitors and murderers.

We were discussing torture, so whether George hung people for crimes or not in a war situation is beyond the scope of the discussion. He refused to torture anyone.

Your hypothetical situation is just that: hypothetical. We can hypothesize any kind of situation in order to justify the things we wish to do. Why don't you make it a little more dire, say that these people have already confessed to killing 56 million small children, this would make torturing them even more acceptable. You miss the point, I don't know how to explain it to you.

Torture is not about what OTHER people do, it's about what WE do. Is there anything--ANYTHING?--that you would not do on the basis of your own sense of moral rightness? If not, then there is nothing to discuss. If there is, then we can proceed from that point. The ball is in your court.

[palerider]

We were discussing torture, so whether George hung people for crimes or not in a war situation is beyond the scope of the discussion. He refused to torture anyone.

Actually, no he didn't. Read some history. Torture was not only an acceptable method of obtaining information from the enemy during war time, methods were taught in military academies.

Your hypothetical situation is just that: hypothetical. We can hypothesize any kind of situation in order to justify the things we wish to do. Why don't you make it a little more dire, say that these people have already confessed to killing 56 million small children, this would make torturing them even more acceptable. You miss the point, I don't know how to explain it to you.

So you would just stand by?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Actually, no he didn't. Read some history. Torture was not only an acceptable method of obtaining information from the enemy during war time, methods were taught in military academies.
I used to have a speech made by George on the subject of torture and his opinion of it, which included his prohibition against using it as well as his reasons for it. I'll try to dig it up for you.

Your sentence bolded above may very well be true but still have no relevance to George Washington and his opinions on the subject. Yes, military people have been using it since... forever. Doesn't mean that George Washington did, nor does it mean that he thought it was a good idea.

So you would just stand by?
Once again you have provided a false choice, you have presented a hypothetical situation that YOU made up so that there would only be YOUR chioce or the "stand by" choice. In a debate this is called "framing the discussion" and it's used in an attempt to back an opponent into a no-win corner. Another example of this technique would be to ask, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

The first thing to do is to make a firm committment to never using torture and then organizing your life in such a fashion that you don't need to. Then an intelligent person or group of people would work to prevent the dire situation from developing in the first place, so that they didn't get backed into a corner where they had no good options. What is called for is "forethought".

[palerider]

Your sentence bolded above may very well be true but still have no relevance to George Washington and his opinions on the subject. Yes, military people have been using it since... forever. Doesn't mean that George Washington did, nor does it mean that he thought it was a good idea.

I have read the Washington speech and he was telling his soldiers that they couldn't simply beat captured enemy soldiers to death with sticks because they were captured and happen to be the enemy. Misinterpreting history doesn't change the fact of history. He said nothing about using torture to extract valuable information in order to save a large number of lives. Spies, traitors and all covert operators were not then, and are not now given the courtesy that soldiers were expected to give each other after the battle was over.

Linclon, who wrote of his admiration and respect for George Washington, and who is himself considered to be the very father of civil rights suspended Habeus corpus and with the help of a secret police bureaucracy operated by William Seward, imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political opponents. They were thrown into gulags such as Fort Lafayette in New York harbor where they were never charged, had no idea how long they would be held, and their families often had no idea of their whereabouts until such time as they were released or their bodies were sent home.

The Lincoln administration, which saw enemies everywhere, labeled virtually anyone who disagreed with its policies as spies and traitors who were therefore subject to military arrest and indefinite imprisonment without due process.

The Lincoln administration also tortured Northern prisoners, as documented by Mark Neely, Jr. in his book, The Fate of Liberty. In a chapter titled "The Dark Side of the Civil War" Neely includes a lengthy section called "Torture", and describes some of the techniques used by the Lincoln administration. He describes torture as a means of extracting confessions" not of Southerners but of Northerners suspected of deserting from the United States Army into which many of them had been drafted. (p. 109). Handcuffs and hanging by the wrists were rare, he says, but the army had developed a water torture that came to be used routinely. When this practice became public knowledge, there was no outcry to correct the abuse, no one in the administration saw it as an abuse. It had become a usual and customary way of handling certain kinds of prisoners.

Lincoln essentially declared himself dictator and proceeded to launch a war without the consent of Congress, he suspend habeas corpus, shut down over 300 opposition newspapers, imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including numerous newspaper editors and owners, deported an outspoken Democratic congressman, Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, censored the telegraph, confiscated private property, confiscated firearms in the border states, imprisoned duly elected members of the Maryland legislature, the mayor of Baltimore, and Congressman Henry May of Baltimore, instructed soldiers to rig Northern elections, and generally ignoreed all constitutional restrictions on executive powers.

Lincoln understood that the very nation was at stake and did what was necessary to win.





The first thing to do is to make a firm committment to never using torture and then organizing your life in such a fashion that you don't need to. Then an intelligent person or group of people would work to prevent the dire situation from developing in the first place, so that they didn't get backed into a corner where they had no good options. What is called for is "forethought".

Fine plot for a series of movies, or books, but we are human beings and can't possibly stop everyone every time.

I understand. You would stand by and see a million die before you would torture one or two who have tested positive for handling the material that you are looking for and bask in your own self righteousness in the aftermath, and to hell with those who died and those they left behind.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Fine plot for a series of movies, or books, but we are human beings and can't possibly stop everyone every time.

I understand. You would stand by and see a million die before you would torture one or two who have tested positive for handling the material that you are looking for and bask in your own self righteousness in the aftermath, and to hell with those who died and those they left behind.

One could not stop everyone everytime with any method, it's an imperfect world. So basically you are stating that there is no level beyond which you would not go, and I am saying that there are things that I would not do. Not much room for discussion in that is there? I do appreciate your hysterical examples though, it's so black and white for you: Millions die if I don't torture 2, life must be very simple for you.

[palerider]

One could not stop everyone everytime with any method, it's an imperfect world. So basically you are stating that there is no level beyond which you would not go, and I am saying that there are things that I would not do. Not much room for discussion in that is there? I do appreciate your hysterical examples though, it's so black and white for you: Millions die if I don't torture 2, life must be very simple for you.

Life is very simple if one is honest. Complication is an unfortunate side effect of dishonesty.

If I were reasonably sure that a suspect knew information that could possibly save a great many lives, I would use any means to get that information and live with myself afterwards. You would stand by and watch a great many die and bask in your self righteousness and feel no guilt because you stood by and let a lot of people die. Life is simple.

[Coyote]

I think the question of torture comes down to essentially the same question as the death penalty.

Are the rights of the individual more important than the greater good?

Is it ok to torture any number of (possibly) innocent people (because you really can never be 100% sure you have the right person) in the hopes of getting information to prevent a larger number of people from being harmed?

Is it ok to excecute condemned people, knowing that the possibility exists that some may be innocent in the name of greater good?

Is "reasonably sure" good enough?

Ironically...this may come back to bite me in the butt on abortion....:D

[Mare Tranquillity]

Life is very simple if one is honest. Complication is an unfortunate side effect of dishonesty.

If I were reasonably sure that a suspect knew information that could possibly save a great many lives, I would use any means to get that information and live with myself afterwards. You would stand by and watch a great many die and bask in your self righteousness and feel no guilt because you stood by and let a lot of people die. Life is simple.

There are always reasons to behave barbarically, the trick is to try to find ways to advance past barbarism, but perhaps once you are stuck with a no-win situation like you describe then your only choice is barbarism. Unfortunately when one has that level of violence at ready access there is no reason not to use it routinely. You would torture 2 to save a million if you had clear evidence that they were responsible, but as the numbers decrease and the clarity of evidence fades, where do you draw the line? Therein lies the problem because once you accept torture as a viable tool for doing God's work (think Inquistion) or at least good work, then why not use it all the time? Couldn't we benefit from torturing confessions out of murderers? Our court dockets are full to overflowing with long-winded trials where high-paid lawyers talk and talk in an attempt to win the argument with no interest in the actual truth. But along comes the Palerider's of the world, people who are willing to do anything to get the truth, shouldn't we use these people and ignore their techniques as long as they get the TRUTH? Child molesters could use torture couldn't they? We'd find out what they did, we'd find out who else they know of who is doing it, and with confessions in hand we won't have to waste a lot of time in court.

Where does it end? In times gone by people discovered to their dismay that there is no end, once torture is an accepted tool of discovery, then there is no reason to do all the other difficult work of discovery--research, investigation, and the like--it's just faster to round up the usual suspects and use torches to get the information we need quickly and efficiently.

Torture is a social evil and the fact that you have to use such egregious examples to make it seem reasonable in the first place makes my point for me. Torture cannot be controlled because it cannot be done in public, it always has to be hidden away in secret prisons and done by people with hoods over heads (at least metaphorical hoods) because would you want your daughter to be dating a torturer? Would you want one to come to your church to sing praises to Jesus alongside you? Would you let someone into your house who butchered living humans for a living?

[palerider]

Ironically...this may come back to bite me in the butt on abortion....:D

Since you see the glaring flaw in your logic, I will not hammer you with it at this time. You are growing if you can see the inconsistancies in your philosophy. Congratulations.

The real question is, what do you do about them? Once you realize that they are there, at some point, you will have to work them out.

[palerider]

There are always reasons to behave barbarically, the trick is to try to find ways to advance past barbarism, but perhaps once you are stuck with a no-win situation like you describe then your only choice is barbarism. Unfortunately when one has that level of violence at ready access there is no reason not to use it routinely. You would torture 2 to save a million if you had clear evidence that they were responsible, but as the numbers decrease and the clarity of evidence fades, where do you draw the line? Therein lies the problem because once you accept torture as a viable tool for doing God's work (think Inquistion) or at least good work, then why not use it all the time? Couldn't we benefit from torturing confessions out of murderers? Our court dockets are full to overflowing with long-winded trials where high-paid lawyers talk and talk in an attempt to win the argument with no interest in the actual truth. But along comes the Palerider's of the world, people who are willing to do anything to get the truth, shouldn't we use these people and ignore their techniques as long as they get the TRUTH? Child molesters could use torture couldn't they? We'd find out what they did, we'd find out who else they know of who is doing it, and with confessions in hand we won't have to waste a lot of time in court.

Where does it end? In times gone by people discovered to their dismay that there is no end, once torture is an accepted tool of discovery, then there is no reason to do all the other difficult work of discovery--research, investigation, and the like--it's just faster to round up the usual suspects and use torches to get the information we need quickly and efficiently.

Torture is a social evil and the fact that you have to use such egregious examples to make it seem reasonable in the first place makes my point for me. Torture cannot be controlled because it cannot be done in public, it always has to be hidden away in secret prisons and done by people with hoods over heads (at least metaphorical hoods) because would you want your daughter to be dating a torturer? Would you want one to come to your church to sing praises to Jesus alongside you? Would you let someone into your house who butchered living humans for a living?

Like I said. Life is simple if you are honest. You seem to have a very complicated philosophy. My bet is that it is rife with inconsistancies.

[Coyote]

Since you see the glaring flaw in your logic, I will not hammer you with it at this time. You are growing if you can see the inconsistancies in your philosophy. Congratulations.

The real question is, what do you do about them? Once you realize that they are there, at some point, you will have to work them out.

Quite true. But that is something that can not be done quickly.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Since you see the glaring flaw in your logic, I will not hammer you with it at this time. You are growing if you can see the inconsistancies in your philosophy. Congratulations.

The real question is, what do you do about them? Once you realize that they are there, at some point, you will have to work them out.

You don't have to work them out, life is simple according to you, Mr. Rider. My guess it denial is what makes life simple.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Like I said. Life is simple if you are honest. You seem to have a very complicated philosophy. My bet is that it is rife with inconsistancies.

I can't imagine what would make you think that my life is rife with inconsistencies. You bland statement that "life is simple if you are honest" is an appealing sound byte, but nothing more. Anybody can make a statement like that while at the same time ignoring the real issues that I politely raised in my thoughtful post to you. Real issues, Mr. Rider, that people who have trod the path you are advocating and have stumbled over.

You have not burdened us down with you "simple philosophy" though I would very much like to hear it. If you please? Mine is not so complex as you seem to think, "harm none". That's it, I practice that as best I can, it requires compromises and difficult decisions sometimes, but all in all it's pretty simple.

[palerider]

You don't have to work them out, life is simple according to you, Mr. Rider. My guess it denial is what makes life simple.

I doubt that you will find many inconsistencies in my personal philosophy Mare. Nor will you find denial. If I felt that torture were necessary, I would use it and live with myself and my actions afterward. You would not use it and deny to yourself that you had wronged the people who died because of your self righteousness. All the while, the ones who did the killing (which you have now become an accessory to) are laughing in your face and thanking you for the help.

Life is simple.

[palerider]

Mine is not so complex as you seem to think, "harm none". That's it, I practice that as best I can, it requires compromises and difficult decisions sometimes, but all in all it's pretty simple.

By not torturing the two in an attempt to find and stop the device from going off, you have harmed thousands, perhaps millions. This is a glaring inconsistancy, actually worse than an inconsistancy, it is a paradox in your philosophy. And yet, you deny that you have harmed anyone. Your philosophy has failed on a grand scale and you blithely deny it.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I doubt that you will find many inconsistencies in my personal philosophy Mare. Nor will you find denial. If I felt that torture were necessary, I would use it and live with myself and my actions afterward. You would not use it and deny to yourself that you had wronged the people who died because of your self righteousness. All the while, the ones who did the killing (which you have now become an accessory to) are laughing in your face and thanking you for the help.

Life is simple.

Well, some people are simple anyway. I'm not sure that having standards by which one guides one's life is "self-righteous" as you always phrase it.

I think that your hypothetical example is pretty badly flawed in that you are trying to make an evil act by others my responsibility because I won't presume guilt (as you are so willing to do) and tear them limb from limb in the hope that useful information can be gained thereby.

Living your life with only Might is Right as your standard probably does make your life simple. Be happy in the simple life you have chosen, Mr. Rider.

[Mare Tranquillity]

By not torturing the two in an attempt to find and stop the device from going off, you have harmed thousands, perhaps millions. This is a glaring inconsistancy, actually worse than an inconsistancy, it is a paradox in your philosophy. And yet, you deny that you have harmed anyone. Your philosophy has failed on a grand scale and you blithely deny it.

You're pretty funny, Mr. Rider. You have whipped up a semantic fluff and are trying to use it to browbeat me and make me feel guilty. How did it become my responsibility? Bad people do bad things all the time, are you claiming that it's my responsibility to torture them so that justice will prevail? And that I am responsible for the deaths and suffering of victims everywhere because I think that torturing people is cruel, stupid, and morally indefensible?

In all of human history there has never been a case like you postulated and yet you are giving me no end of feces because I won't rubberstamp your violent and un-Constitutional use of torture. People who have to resort to those kinds of tactics are pathetic. I'm not interested in your twisted violence or your hideous physical abuses of people you have condemned without due process in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention and the US Constitution, I'm ashamed that people like you have sway over the actions of our government.

The people who wrote and signed the Geneva Convention did so after a war that demonstrated too clearly what torture did to people, it's shameful and pathetic that so few years later people like you are ready--eager even--to go back and make the same ghastly mistakes over again just because you are afraid.

[palerider]

In all of human history there has never been a case like you postulated

Are you sure? Can you prove that? We acted on information gathered in unpleasant ways in vietnam and very often saved lives because we were able to stay ahead of the NVA. All information gathered by such means is not accurate, but if the people you have in custody know what you need to know, it is.

Your personal philosophy of harn no one has a paradox within it rendering it useless. You can't see it even when it is pointed out to you. A philosophy must be able to withstand the hypothetical as well as the here and now if it is to have any worth at all.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Are you sure? Can you prove that? We acted on information gathered in unpleasant ways in vietnam and very often saved lives because we were able to stay ahead of the NVA. All information gathered by such means is not accurate, but if the people you have in custody know what you need to know, it is.

Your personal philosophy of harn no one has a paradox within it rendering it useless. You can't see it even when it is pointed out to you. A philosophy must be able to withstand the hypothetical as well as the here and now if it is to have any worth at all.

You postulated a hidden atomic weapon and finding 2 people with nuclear contamination on their hands. I can't prove that it never happened, even you should be able to understand that a person cannot prove a negative, but since you are the one with the wild scenario it's up to you to prove that it did. And did the torture solve the problem?

Because of your willingness to resort to violence I doubt that we really have anything to discuss. Your whole paradigm seems to be antithetical to my own. So explaining to you is probably impossible since we have no common ground from which to begin.

There is an interesting book called ISHMAEL (that has nothing to do with the Ishmael of the Bible) which notes the fact that humans have been using violence to try to solve their problems for about 10,000 years now with little success. The author suggests that perhaps another approach may be in order. I agree, you do not--what's to discuss? People like you seem to be in the majority, people like you kill people like me--I don't like that very much but it's better than the alternative. Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many other peaceful people have been killed by the people who cannot see any alternative to violence. If I am to be another one of those people, so be it. Have a nice day and if you do your riding in the Sun, you can stop being such a pale rider.

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't think Mr. Rider will be posting on this thread again so this is addressed to Phenom, rokin 91, FellowCitizen, Beatleworld, and anyone else who thinks torture is acceptable because I am curious about something. One of the problems I have with the death penalty is that there is no way to take it back if you discover that you've made a mistake--and a LOT of them have been made.

Similarly, if one sets out to torture a person for whom guilt is seemingly "obvious", but yet they continue to claim innocence despite your best efforts. At what point do you stop torturing them, assume they are telling the truth, and go back to looking for the real guilty party?

My guess is that you cannot stop torturing them until they are dead because you and I both know that some people will never give up even under the worst abuse that one human can visit on another--so won't you have to assume that the person you are torturing is one of those people and keep trying until you have torn them to death? If not, what line of reasoning would you use to justify stopping the torture?

[ArmChair General]

I don't think Mr. Rider will be posting on this thread again so this is addressed to Phenom, rokin 91, FellowCitizen, Beatleworld, and anyone else who thinks torture is acceptable because I am curious about something. One of the problems I have with the death penalty is that there is no way to take it back if you discover that you've made a mistake--and a LOT of them have been made.

Similarly, if one sets out to torture a person for whom guilt is seemingly "obvious", but yet they continue to claim innocence despite your best efforts. At what point do you stop torturing them, assume they are telling the truth, and go back to looking for the real guilty party?

My guess is that you cannot stop torturing them until they are dead because you and I both know that some people will never give up even under the worst abuse that one human can visit on another--so won't you have to assume that the person you are torturing is one of those people and keep trying until you have torn them to death? If not, what line of reasoning would you use to justify stopping the torture?

Torture, its only needed when your in the wrong. Like Vietnam, like Iraq 2, we were and are in the wrong. But that doesn't make it any less useful to the people who are there, trying to save their own lives and the lives of their buddies.

Don't listen to empty heads like Palerider who are too ignorant to see the whole picture.

Torture is wrong, in any circumstance. But all I'm saying, is that you can't blame the folks who use it in ****ty circumstances. Blame the politicians who put them there in the first place.

I don't know if that makes any sense.

[Coyote]

Torture, its only needed when your in the wrong. Like Vietnam, like Iraq 2, we were and are in the wrong. But that doesn't make it any less useful to the people who are there, trying to save their own lives and the lives of their buddies.

Don't listen to empty heads like Palerider who are too ignorant to see the whole picture.

Torture is wrong, in any circumstance. But all I'm saying, is that you can't blame the folks who use it in ****ty circumstances. Blame the politicians who put them there in the first place.

I don't know if that makes any sense.


Actually...it does...

[USMC the Almighty]

Actually...it does...

No it doesn't. What does the justification for a particular war have to do with the means of fighting said war?

[Coyote]

I am thinking that maybe there is a difference when you have the support of the people you are fighting for...the "Ike" test Eisenhower used to determine whether or not to go to war.

[rmbarron]

All morality aside, the problem with torture is this; once it becomes acceptable to the people as a practice, how do they prevent it from being used against them? This is a very real "slippery-slope" scenario. Today we're torturing forgiegn enemies, but what about tomorrow? Could it be applied to political dissidents? To prisoners? If the army can do it, why not the police? Someone once said that power can be defined as a monopoly on violence. No state should be entrusted with so much arbitrary power. Especially ours.

[r0beph]

Torture absolutely and 100% and without any further discussion, should NOT OCCUR. It's reprehensible, it's inhumane, it's insane. The information gleaned from torture may or may not be true, if the person knows nothing, is he just a casualty of war? Supporting this is inhuman. I'll stop now before I Godwin. I hate these threads. Morality falls through the floor.

[Mare Tranquillity]

No it doesn't. What does the justification for a particular war have to do with the means of fighting said war?

I don't think it does have any bearing on it. Torture should not be used by anyone at any time. If others debase themselves in order to use it we should not do likewise. If we lower ourselves to their level then we are no different than they.

[palerider]

I don't think it does have any bearing on it. Torture should not be used by anyone at any time. If others debase themselves in order to use it we should not do likewise. If we lower ourselves to their level then we are no different than they.

Very high ideals for someone who has never actually been shot at. It is fine to sit back in your righteousness, 10,000 miles from the shooting and talk about how we "should" go into war. It is an entirely different thing to actually go into war.

Do you realize that the british lost in the revolutionary war because they wouldn't "lower" themselves to fight on the level we fought on? They insisted in fighting in blocks of soldiers in the open fields like war was some sort of chess game and would not think to lower themselves to shooting from behind a tree. Their highmindedness got them killed in the tens of thousands and eventually lost them the war.

You fight your enemy to win. If you don't, he will defeat you.

[Abraxis Axis]

Very high ideals for someone who has never actually been shot at. It is fine to sit back in your righteousness, 10,000 miles from the shooting and talk about how we "should" go into war. It is an entirely different thing to actually go into war.

Do you realize that the british lost in the revolutionary war because they wouldn't "lower" themselves to fight on the level we fought on? They insisted in fighting in blocks of soldiers in the open fields like war was some sort of chess game and would not think to lower themselves to shooting from behind a tree. Their highmindedness got them killed in the tens of thousands and eventually lost them the war.

You fight your enemy to win. If you don't, he will defeat you.
theres that Braggadicio again
quite fond of it i see .Frankly I could care less if you have ever been shot at. And your arrogant self seems to forget the fact that many of the folks here online have also travelled thousands of miles from home in order to serve theyre country

Im sure your not the only swingin D*ck who has been shot at in theatre as a matter of fact i know your not....funny i dont see the others spew on about as you do though...yes when it was raised as whether or not your genuine i can see why now



hey everyone Palerider needs some acknowledgment of his prowess as a past soldier he longs for your acceptance .this is why he continues to toot his horn...........you all have at least one member i am POSITIVE has given FAR MORE of himself than pale ever imagined................. and he NEVER EVEN MENTIONS IT.................pale has mentioned it many times...those who know dont disuss it as candidly as our friend pale here does.

[palerider]

hey everyone Palerider needs some acknowledgment of his prowess as a past soldier he longs for your acceptance ..

Nothing of importance to say I see, and certainly nothing to add to the conversatiuon. Just impotently shooting from the sidelines as usual, as if someone asctually spoke to you. I suggest that you go vote for yourself a couple of more times as the best poster here and then come back and tell me that I long for acceptance. You should also work out your idiot spelling mistakes as well so it isn't quite so blatantly obvious that you and roker are one in the same.

What a hypocrite.

[Abraxis Axis]

Nothing of importance to say I see. Certainly nothing to add to the conversatiuon. Just shooting from the sidelines as usual. I suggest that you go vote for yourself a couple of more times as the best poster here and then come back and tell me that I long for acceptance.

What a hypocrite.

i dont need acceptance big guy I am an Assh^ole of the highest magnitude its my JOB I cant vote for myself any more than once, and i have already done that so ??? your a bit fixated.......l..go on tell us what its like to be shot at will ya huh huh will ya? im sure theyre all waiting to hear it

[Mare Tranquillity]

Very high ideals for someone who has never actually been shot at. It is fine to sit back in your righteousness, 10,000 miles from the shooting and talk about how we "should" go into war. It is an entirely different thing to actually go into war.

Do you realize that the british lost in the revolutionary war because they wouldn't "lower" themselves to fight on the level we fought on? They insisted in fighting in blocks of soldiers in the open fields like war was some sort of chess game and would not think to lower themselves to shooting from behind a tree. Their highmindedness got them killed in the tens of thousands and eventually lost them the war.

You fight your enemy to win. If you don't, he will defeat you.

If one sells their (metaphorical) soul to win, they've lost anyway. Resorting to ANY tactic that helps you win is a decision that each person has to make for themselves and you continuing to bash at me for my "righteous" and "self-righteous" attitudes says more about you than about me.

We are not going to end up agreeing on this subject and you trying to make torture an integral part of war and life in general brings up an interesting question in my mind: you are advocating a philosophy of the ends justify the means, but is there ANYTHING that you wouldn't do to win? Take it to the furthest extreme you can conceive, is ANYTHING beyond what you would be willing to do? If so, why?

[Rokerijdude11]

Nothing of importance to say I see, and certainly nothing to add to the conversatiuon. Just impotently shooting from the sidelines as usual, as if someone asctually spoke to you. I suggest that you go vote for yourself a couple of more times as the best poster here and then come back and tell me that I long for acceptance. You should also work out your idiot spelling mistakes as well so it isn't quite so blatantly obvious that you and roker are one in the same.

What a hypocrite.
And i put my 2 cents in on the second page? so i already said, what i had to say here? I already added to this thread many posts ago?

[Mare Tranquillity]

theres that Braggadicio again
quite fond of it i see .Frankly I could care less if you have ever been shot at. And your arrogant self seems to forget the fact that many of the folks here online have also travelled thousands of miles from home in order to serve theyre country
Im sure your not the only swingin D*ck who has been shot at in theatre as a matter of fact i know your not....funny i dont see the others spew on about as you do though...yes when it was raised as whether or not your genuine i can see why now



hey everyone Palerider needs some acknowledgment of his prowess as a past soldier he longs for your acceptance .this is why he continues to toot his horn...........you all have at least one member i am POSITIVE has given FAR MORE of himself than pale ever imagined................. and he NEVER EVEN MENTIONS IT.................pale has mentioned it many times...those who know dont disuss it as candidly as our friend pale here does.

Well, I don't know about Pale's military record or any of that, but I do know that frightened people will do ANYTHING no matter how monstrous to cope with their fear. Torture is just one of those monstrous things. Pale is afraid of losing his life and he apparently has no religious beliefs (none espoused and he expressed contempt towards me once for assuming that he had some beliefs) and thus I guess he sees nothing wrong with grabbing all the gusto he can by living the Might is Right lifestyle. I'm sorry for him in that it must be difficult to live a life that might push one towards accepting something as cruel and disgusting as torturing other human beings.

[palerider]

you are advocating a philosophy of the ends justify the means, but is there ANYTHING that you wouldn't do to win? Take it to the furthest extreme you can conceive, is ANYTHING beyond what you would be willing to do? If so, why?

If you have an enemy, and you decide that you can no longer tolerate that enemy's existence and go to war with him, you had better be prepared to win. The "ends justify the means" has nothing to do with war.

Contrary to liberal ideas of getting along with our enemies in order to fashion some sort of peace are naive' as a best case senario and more likely suicidal. Peace comes after you have crushed the life out of your enemy.

[palerider]

i dont need acceptance big guy I am an Assh^ole of the highest magnitude its my JOB I cant vote for myself any more than once, and i have already done that so ??? your a bit fixated.......l..go on tell us what its like to be shot at will ya huh huh will ya? im sure theyre all waiting to hear it

If it hasn't happened to you, you couldn't grasp it, even if I wrote you a 10,000 word essay. You seem envious and bitter for some reason. Why is that?

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you have an enemy, and you decide that you can no longer tolerate that enemy's existence and go to war with him, you had better be prepared to win. The "ends justify the means" has nothing to do with war.

Contrary to liberal ideas of getting along with our enemies in order to fashion some sort of peace are naive' as a best case senario and more likely suicidal. Peace comes after you have crushed the life out of your enemy.
What a sad and ugly way to live.

You didn't answer my questions, Pale.

After thinking about this for a couple of hours I think anyone who feels somewhat like Pale does should watch the movie V is for Vendetta. Pale, like many religions, is selling fear, he talks power and stirs up fears in others to justify brutality in a pointless attempt to quell his own fear. Frightened people who give in to their fears torture others, it takes great strength to compassionate in face of fear.

[dahermit]

I remember seeing a TV special about a study of torture. There were several surprising findings. One was that the actual purpose of torture is more likely to be for the "pleasure" of the person doing the torture than to extract any useful military information. It was claimed that torture rarely if ever results in useful information.
Another was that the tortured person would make up things to tell his tormentor to the point where fact was harder to sort out from fiction.

In the current situation in the world, I wonder how many innocent people have been tortured, released to become terrorists because of how they were treated. Remember that the current practice in Iraq seems to be to arrest everyone in the vicinity of an incident and "hold them for questioning."
How many terrorists are made when a family member is "held for questioning"?

[r0beph]

theres that Braggadicio again
quite fond of it i see .Frankly I could care less if you have ever been shot at. And your arrogant self seems to forget the fact that many of the folks here online have also travelled thousands of miles from home in order to serve theyre country

Im sure your not the only swingin D*ck who has been shot at in theatre as a matter of fact i know your not....funny i dont see the others spew on about as you do though...yes when it was raised as whether or not your genuine i can see why now



hey everyone Palerider needs some acknowledgment of his prowess as a past soldier he longs for your acceptance .this is why he continues to toot his horn...........you all have at least one member i am POSITIVE has given FAR MORE of himself than pale ever imagined................. and he NEVER EVEN MENTIONS IT.................pale has mentioned it many times...those who know dont disuss it as candidly as our friend pale here does.

I've been shot at, several times. Those innercity gangs do NOT like you trying to keep their latest opposing faction member laying in a puddle of his own guts alive. Thank god for EMS issues body armor right? Though I suppose this has little bearing on the discussion, no one cares that he's been shot at. It lends no credence to his support of torture. As for his argument concerning the british and their rifle lines, this is completely different to that and that point hold absolutely as much purpose as my stories about being shot at by some guy in a blue bandana or red bandana, depending on the day of the week. Currently war is fought with a heavy amount of technology, the battlescape is ever evolving as are our tactics. to equate ground fighting tactics to torture chambers in any analogy is ridiculous. We do modify our tactics in fighting the war. Torture is not a strategy it is inhumanity. The information coming from the tortured is always more suspect than testomony from a pathological liar. To support torture makes you a very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very sick person.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Torture is not a strategy it is inhumanity. The information coming from the tortured is always more suspect than testomony from a pathological liar. To support torture makes you a very sick person.

I remember seeing a TV special about a study of torture. There were several surprising findings. One was that the actual purpose of torture is more likely to be for the "pleasure" of the person doing the torture than to extract any useful military information. It was claimed that torture rarely if ever results in useful information.
Another was that the tortured person would make up things to tell his tormentor to the point where fact was harder to sort out from fiction.

In the current situation in the world, I wonder how many innocent people have been tortured, released to become terrorists because of how they were treated. Remember that the current practice in Iraq seems to be to arrest everyone in the vicinity of an incident and "hold them for questioning."
How many terrorists are made when a family member is "held for questioning"?

Amen! Very good posts, thank you for your perceptive contributions.:)

[Coyote]

What a sad and ugly way to live.

You didn't answer my questions, Pale.

After thinking about this for a couple of hours I think anyone who feels somewhat like Pale does should watch the movie V is for Vendetta. Pale, like many religions, is selling fear, he talks power and stirs up fears in others to justify brutality in a pointless attempt to quell his own fear. Frightened people who give in to their fears torture others, it takes great strength to compassionate in face of fear.

That's a good movie....


I oppose torture, but some of what Pale says is correct. When you go to war, you better go in prepared to win. War is not going to be polite, neat, bloodless.

That being said it makes all the more important that war truely is a last resort and not because of the misbegotten ambitions of a bunch of ideological political nation builders who themselves managed to avoid serving in conflict.

[Coyote]

I remember seeing a TV special about a study of torture. There were several surprising findings. One was that the actual purpose of torture is more likely to be for the "pleasure" of the person doing the torture than to extract any useful military information. It was claimed that torture rarely if ever results in useful information.
Another was that the tortured person would make up things to tell his tormentor to the point where fact was harder to sort out from fiction.

In the current situation in the world, I wonder how many innocent people have been tortured, released to become terrorists because of how they were treated. Remember that the current practice in Iraq seems to be to arrest everyone in the vicinity of an incident and "hold them for questioning."
How many terrorists are made when a family member is "held for questioning"?

Exactly!!

[Mare Tranquillity]

That's a good movie....


I oppose torture, but some of what Pale says is correct. When you go to war, you better go in prepared to win. War is not going to be polite, neat, bloodless.

That being said it makes all the more important that war truely is a last resort and not because of the misbegotten ambitions of a bunch of ideological political nation builders who themselves managed to avoid serving in conflict.

Tortue is not war, it is beastiality at it's worst. Killing is one thing, torture is totally another.

[Coyote]

Tortue is not war, it is beastiality at it's worst. Killing is one thing, torture is totally another.

Torture is a real slippery slope. Once you engage in it, you lose any moral credability you might have had.

I have heard arguments in defense of torture on the immediate battlefield, to gain quick information in order to save one's comrades.

Then there is the institutinalized brutality and torture in Abu Ghraib and other prisons, as well as in the "extraordinary rendition" where prisoners are sent to other countries specifically to be tortured so the US keeps it's public hands clean. In addition, many of the people picked up in these cases were picked up in broad sweeps or with little more then hearsay justifying it. I think any information that could conceivably have been picked up is not enough to outweight the damage done to the US by these actions.

Do you think there is any difference in the two sorts of torture? Is one more justifiable then the other?

[USMC the Almighty]

you all have at least one member i am POSITIVE has given FAR MORE of himself than pale ever imagined................. and he NEVER EVEN MENTIONS IT.................

Who, your buddy Fonz?

[palerider]

What a sad and ugly way to live.

You didn't answer my questions, Pale.

After thinking about this for a couple of hours I think anyone who feels somewhat like Pale does should watch the movie V is for Vendetta. Pale, like many religions, is selling fear, he talks power and stirs up fears in others to justify brutality in a pointless attempt to quell his own fear. Frightened people who give in to their fears torture others, it takes great strength to compassionate in face of fear.


We have an enemy that operates at a level of brutality that you apparently can't imagine. They treat their own women worse than any detainee that we might have. We are fighting an enemy that cuts heads off for fun and percieves any mercy on our part as weakness which further goads them on towards their own victory. If you don't know your enemy and respond to him appropriately, you will lose.

[Rokerijdude11]

The original post was not discussing the current enemy. It was discussing the torture of an American citizen, suspected of something. and the question was is it oke to torture an american citizen.....although thats not what the title reads..............

cutting off heads for fun? come on now.....you arent that brainwashed are you? they dont do it for fun and maybe they dont do it at all? but it isnt for fun.......not in theyre minds anyways

some people are so gullable

[r0beph]

We have an enemy that operates at a level of brutality that you apparently can't imagine. They treat their own women worse than any detainee that we might have. We are fighting an enemy that cuts heads off for fun and percieves any mercy on our part as weakness which further goads them on towards their own victory. If you don't know your enemy and respond to him appropriately, you will lose.


You've lost me in your logic, perhaps it's so well woven that I simply cannot break through the intellect required to understand what you're saying? No that's not it. You're just applying bad concepts to your ideal. The fact that they torture, mistreat their women, and cut heads off (for effect in video to monger fear, or for festivities, whatever the why) has NO bearing on their combat. The fight we have against them is not effected by their treatment of prisoners. Now I'd support this formula where enemy does A and We do B so A >= B to succeed. but in this case this really has no bearing on the war. their brutality towards incapacitated prisoners will not change for the better when we begin torturing people who may or may not be deserving. Care to explain how torture equates to winning any battle in this conflict?

[r0beph]

Tortue is not war, it is beastiality at it's worst. Killing is one thing, torture is totally another.

Being forced to watch bestiality is torture. But I don't think torture itself is sex with animals. Though perhaps for the animal it is. Strange allegoric content abound.

[Coyote]

The original post was not discussing the current enemy. It was discussing the torture of an American citizen, suspected of something. and the question was is it oke to torture an american citizen.....although thats not what the title reads..............

cutting off heads for fun? come on now.....you arent that brainwashed are you? they dont do it for fun and maybe they dont do it at all? but it isnt for fun.......not in theyre minds anyways

some people are so gullable

That's what I kind of wonder about...how far do you lower yourselves once you start the torture game? Can we and have we gone to far?

Is it justifiable to do it because they do it and even if we do it, it's not quite as bad?

[r0beph]

I hate that idea to coyote , that we can or should because they do. I mean if it's a broadly applied methodology, does that mean to protect a child from a pedophile you should have sex with the kid? ABSOLUTELY NOT, sick. But that's what you're saying. Remember. you said it. Not me.

[Coyote]

I hate that idea to coyote , that we can or should because they do. I mean if it's a broadly applied methodology, does that mean to protect a child from a pedophile you should have sex with the kid? ABSOLUTELY NOT, sick. But that's what you're saying. Remember. you said it. Not me.

No that is not what I'm saying - it is not what I agree with. I often hear the argument in defense of torture go something like this (in defense of Abu Ghraib etc.) - at least we aren't sawing off their heads with dull knives - as if as long as we don't go quite that far, we are justified and people shouldn't be griping.

I don't happen to agree. I think once institutionalized torture begins then we have already lost.

[r0beph]

No that is not what I'm saying - it is not what I agree with. I often hear the argument in defense of torture go something like this (in defense of Abu Ghraib etc.) - at least we aren't sawing off their heads with dull knives - as if as long as we don't go quite that far, we are justified and people shouldn't be griping.

I don't happen to agree. I think once institutionalized torture begins then we have already lost.

That's not what he said, he said we SHOULD go to their level. Either way the metaphor can be applied in any method you choose. Sure we're posting nude pics of our prepubescent daughter to catch these pedophiles BUT HEY, WE'RE NOT HAVING SEX WITH THEM! I'm trying to show the ridiculousness of the whole ideal. I still stand by that.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Torture is a real slippery slope. Once you engage in it, you lose any moral credability you might have had.

I have heard arguments in defense of torture on the immediate battlefield, to gain quick information in order to save one's comrades.

Then there is the institutinalized brutality and torture in Abu Ghraib and other prisons, as well as in the "extraordinary rendition" where prisoners are sent to other countries specifically to be tortured so the US keeps it's public hands clean. In addition, many of the people picked up in these cases were picked up in broad sweeps or with little more then hearsay justifying it. I think any information that could conceivably have been picked up is not enough to outweight the damage done to the US by these actions.

Do you think there is any difference in the two sorts of torture? Is one more justifiable then the other?

Yes, of course there is a difference, but the line between them is invisible and once Pale starts he has no limits (or at least he hasn't spoken about any limits when asked). The torturers of the world will always be able to find excuses and justifications, I think that torture should be banned legally and condemned and prosecuted whenever it happens. This would include battlefield torture. Here's the reasoning: If your spouse is dying in agony you cannot kill them even if they are begging you to do so, yet people do it anyway knowing that they face the consequences for their actions, sometimes they are acquitted, but they have to face the law and be judged in court. The same should apply to battlefield torture that you postulate, do it if you feel strongly about it, but realize that you WILL have your day in court for breaking the law. If the circumstances justify your actions then perhaps the court martial will exonerate you. Torture is a social evil and should NEVER be legal policy.

[Mare Tranquillity]

We have an enemy that operates at a level of brutality that you apparently can't imagine. They treat their own women worse than any detainee that we might have. We are fighting an enemy that cuts heads off for fun and percieves any mercy on our part as weakness which further goads them on towards their own victory. If you don't know your enemy and respond to him appropriately, you will lose.

If you have to fight an insane enemy, you do not win by becoming just as insane. You are selling fear in an attempt to justify a kind of bestiality that has NO justification. The fact that some people do it doesn't make it right for us to do it. You are advocating becoming the very thing that we despise the most about those people. Why become the very thing that you hate and fear?

There is something very Biblical about your "eye for an eye" attitude. Civilization is not based on doing unto others as others have done to you. We don't do to serial killers what they do to their victims, we didn't lynch the folks who lynched black people, we don't allow the victim's family member to "pull the switch" on the killer. There is a reason that we don't "do unto others as others have done to us", and it's because you can't make a civilization with the tit for tat mentality, we have to be better than the people who oppose us or we risk having a "Hatfields and McCoys" world where only the most vicious predators will survive. That's what I meant about a "sad and ugly" way to live.

The bad thing about integrity is that you can't buy it or steal it.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Being forced to watch bestiality is torture. But I don't think torture itself is sex with animals. Though perhaps for the animal it is. Strange allegoric content abound.

I misspelled the word, it's "bestiality" and it means doing ghastly things--like tearing people apart for fun or profit. Sorry for the confusion.

[palerider]

I misspelled the word, it's "bestiality" and it means doing ghastly things--like tearing people apart for fun or profit. Sorry for the confusion.

Ironic that you would characterize my acceptance of torture (under certain conditions) in such a manner and then describe it as tearing human beings apart for fun and profit. I bet you support abortion which really is tearing human beings apart for profit. Human beings, which incidentally, don't have any information that could stop an attack.

[palerider]

That's not what he said, he said we SHOULD go to their level. Either way the metaphor can be applied in any method you choose. Sure we're posting nude pics of our prepubescent daughter to catch these pedophiles BUT HEY, WE'RE NOT HAVING SEX WITH