DescentBB

tunnelcat wrote:When we use ends that justify the means, we become as evil as our enemies. So do we stoop to their level or retain or moral authority.

I'm waiting for Hannity to take up Olbermann's offer of paying a thousand dollars for each second that Hannity can take being waterboarded. But to be fair, he has to have it done over 200 times in a month and have no safe signal stops to really know what the experience is like.

And I'm waiting TC, for you to say what you would tell the father of the dead child when he showed up on your doorstep asking why you wouldn't get the information that would of prevented his only child's demise. I'm sure your "ends don't justify the means" would give him great comfort.

Torture used to be shoving bamboo up your fingernails, and stuff like dripping water on your head for weeks at a time.

Now Torture is “Waterboarding” & Truth Serum…give me a break, whats next…locking someone up?

I do believe there is a huge loss of perspective, on this issue. Maybe we should change the laws back to what “Torture” really is.

Spidey wrote:Torture used to be shoving bamboo up your fingernails, and stuff like dripping water on your head for weeks at a time.

Now Torture is “Waterboarding” & Truth Serum…give me a break, whats next…locking someone up?

I do believe there is a huge loss of perspective, on this issue. Maybe we should change the laws back to what “Torture” really is.

Now we're gettin somewhere.

Will, the people of the U.S. and the government constantly call the terrorists 'evil', so when we as a nation stoop to sadistic and barbaric methods to get information out of our enemies, we have become what they are, evil and inhuman. By the way, I also consider Islamic terrorists to be 'evil'.

Torture has been found to NOT work in getting reliable information from prisoners. The Pentagon's own recently released JPRA memo even admits that torture doesn't produce accurate results and in the same memo stated 'waterboarding' IS defined as torture. They've found that gaining rapport with the prisoner has a far more positive outcome for getting accurate information and has the extra benefit of NOT creating a hardened enemy who will fight you to the end.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03171.html

http://bbornn.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/ ... %99t-work/

So if you want the information to protect your children, do what really works to get the job done and not manufacture even more enemies in the process.

I'm all for getting the information out of our enemies to protect our nation, but I'm not will to sacrifice my moral authority to become 'INHUMAN'. I'm not a sadist and I think others that like that sort of technique must enjoy it and thusly are on par with perverts. What ever happened to civility?

Spidey wrote:Now Torture is “Waterboarding” & Truth Serum…give me a break, whats next…locking someone up?

We have considered waterboarding torture since we executed Japanese soldiers for doing it to us.

Spidey wrote: if God wrote "kill" he meant "kill" period!

Except, that he didn't write kill, he wrote Ratsach, whose primary definition is more along the lines of murder or "unlawful killing" than just kill.
Note, for example, that 2 Kings 11:15 uses the Hebrew word Muwth to denote a lawful execution. Muwth implies a lawful killing, especially an execution under the law. The Bible makes a clear delineation between killings that were lawful and unlawful.

WoodChip wrote: I'm waiting TC, for you to say what you would tell the father of the dead child when he showed up on your doorstep asking why you wouldn't get the information that would of prevented his only child's demise

What will you tell the mother of the man that you tortured, who turns out to have been framed. How will you appologize to him, or his family?

Will Robinson wrote:I reject the idea that child molesters work in groups.

While child pornography is not the all pervading presence that the Internet scaremongers would like you to believe, it does exist, and it is done by groups who cooperate to produce, distribute, and hide it. http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us ... raphy+ring

Like I said, I don't think there is any crime worse than child molestation. And even so, I dont want the police to feel that they can disregard all due-process laws when pursuing child molesters. If they could, why not expand the scenario to include organized crime? The mob has killed more innocent civilians than all terrorist groups together. There have certainly been many occasions where the police had good info that a hit was in the works, and had a known crime boss who they were certain was behind it, and yet couldn't act because they didn't have enough evidence to get a warrant.

This is as it should be. I'm scared of criminals, but I'm MORE scared of a police state. When the police start ignoring due-process in order to "protect you", it endangers you more than whatever threat they were protecting you from. That's why we have such strict laws controlling what they can and can not do.

But it seems from your suggested scenarios, that you believe that a police officer should be allowed to torture a prisoner whenever that officer is convinced they have enough evidence that another person is going to be hurt and this criminal has the information needed to stop it. Or are you saying that the officer needs to get a special kind of "harsh interrogation" warrant from a judge?

In either case, do you really feel that the police, or even judges, can be trusted with this power? Would you be comfortable knowing that a small town sheriff can torture a victim he is convinced has important information? Would city cops with this power be any better? Would you trust a Chicago Judge to issue the warrants? And even honest Judges and Juries make mistakes.

Who decides? Who do you give the power to torture people?

An interesting quote I ran into on the topic of torture:

The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. I further urge governments to join America and others in supporting torture victims' treatment centers, contributing to the UN Fund for the Victims of Torture, and supporting the efforts of non-governmental organizations to end torture and assist its victims.
--President George W. Bush

Jeff…new era…new laws. I don’t really condone torture, but that being said, I also have a different view on what “torture” is. Those laws were written for uniformed soldiers fighting uniformed soldiers, in a different time.

And I’m sure my opinions on this subject are guided by my utter hatred of terrorists, and the fact that “they” have no regard for the rule of law concerning warfare.

You know, I understand the idea behind “not sinking to their level” and I would hope we would never stoop that low. But on the other hand, I also hope our high moral standards, don’t lead to our demise either.

I know you won’t accept any excuse for using extreme measures to gain information, because you must take the moral high ground on every issue, but we better find some tools for this, for our own good.

I wish I could always take the moral high ground on every issue, that’s why I envy you liberals. (as stated in another thread, I started) Because that’s the easy answer to everything.

Kilarin wrote:

WoodChip wrote: I'm waiting TC, for you to say what you would tell the father of the dead child when he showed up on your doorstep asking why you wouldn't get the information that would of prevented his only child's demise

What will you tell the mother of the man that you tortured, who turns out to have been framed. How will you appologize to him, or his family?

Don't try to obfuscate. You know perfectly well I'm talking about a very bad class of individuals who are known to possess information and have already carried out attacks killing thousands. This discussion was not geared toward picking some sad sack drug mule off the street and torturing them to find out where their supplier is. The individuals that were bathed are:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed believed to be the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Abu Zubaydah played a lead role in one of the 2000 millennium attack plots, approved the Los Angeles airport bomb plot in 2000. In March 2001, Condoleezza Rice was informed by the CIA that Zubaydah was planning a major operation in the near future. The attack finally came in the form of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

So you see Kilarin, these 2 were not exactly your average poor schmuck off the street. If you say you would not of used whatever means were at your disposal to prevent 9/11 then I hope some day when you are at the Pearly Gates, all the 9/11 victims are there to say hello. Don't try and argue by taking some amorphous "I'm better than all that" position as you won't win the argument.

The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly. Proverbs 20:30

And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten. Deuteronomy 25:2

fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes. Proverbs 18:6

Judgments are prepared for scorners, and stripes for the back of fools. Proverbs 19:29

A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back. Proverbs 26:3

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. Romans 13:1-5

Spidey wrote:I wish I could always take the moral high ground on every issue, that's why I envy you liberals. (as stated in another thread, I started) Because that's the easy answer to everything.

I don't USUALLY get counted as a liberal.

woodchip wrote:Don't try to obfuscate. You know perfectly well I'm talking about a very bad class of individuals who are known to possess information and have already carried out attacks killing thousands.

I'm not obfuscating. It's directly related to the issue. The question I keep asking is, who will decide? Who will you give the power to order someone tortured? Will Robinson has already stated that he would support police using torture in extreme circumstances. Should police be able to decide? A judge? The president? And whoever you give this power, do you think they will always use it in the way intended?

What limits (if any) will you put on how this authority (whoever they are) decides who gets tortured? If the reason to allow torture is that someone has important time sensitive information that could save lives, well, that applies in a lot of areas that I think (hope) would make even you uncomfortable.

Can we apply torture to a family member of a terrorist? They may not have actually participated in any terror activities, but we are certain they overheard things we need to know! The issue of time sensitive information and saving lives applies exactly the same. Does the guilt level of the torturee mater, or are we only going to go on the importance of the information?

Why can't we apply torture in domestic cases? As I said, the Mob is FAR more dangerous than terrorists, and child molesters are even more deserving of torture. Or are you only comfortable torturing foreigners?

I'm not obfuscating or being ridiculous. You can't legalize torture without addressing these issues. If you want to keep torture as a legal option in the USA, how do you propose to control it?

Woodchip wrote:Don't try and argue by taking some amorphous "I'm better than all that" position as you won't win the argument.

I'm not. That's EXACTLY the problem. Given the power to torture people that I thought deserved it, I KNOW I would abuse it. There are so many bad people in the world, people I think NEED to get hurt. My argument doesn't come from "I'm better than that". Exactly the opposite. I'm not convinced torture could ever be right, BUT IF IT COULD, I'm way to evil to be allowed to do that.

Insurrectionist wrote:A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back. Proverbs 26:3

Thank you, that is an interesting collection of texts. I notice they are all based around punishment though, not interrogation. Do you feel that the founding fathers were wrong when they outlawed cruel and unusual punishment? Or, more specifically, do you think we should bring back beatings and whippings as modern forms of punishments for certain crimes in America. Because I think that applies more directly to these texts than torture does.

The Mob & Child Molestors are not trying to destroy our very way of life. I doubt very much torturing a Mob member could possibly yield information that could in theory save hundreds or even thousands of lives…or more.

Just thought I would point that out.

Spidey wrote: I doubt very much torturing a Mob member could possibly yield information that could in theory save hundreds or even thousands of lives...or more.

This is a common mis-perception of risks. We think of 911 as being a big risk because it made a big impression on us. But in terms of numbers, Terrorism is dwarfed by most other risks we face. In 2001, the year with the highest rate of terrorism related deaths in US history, the odds of anyone dying from a terrorist attack were about the same as the odds of dying from Diarrhea. It's way way way behind genital system cancer. And that's an unusual year.

From 1968 to 2006 there were 3,227 American deaths due to terrorism. Thats an average of about 82 deaths a year. Even if you take just 2000-2006 we get 2,990 terrorist fatalities, which makes about 414 deaths a year.

Don't misunderstand me, terrorism is terrible, and we SHOULD be doing something about it. But even if we had a 911 sized event every single year, influenza would STILL be an orders of magnitude worse. (and we don't spend even a fraction of the time and money there that we spend fighting terrorism).

Wait, wait, I hear your objection already, "but terrorist MIGHT set off a nuke and kill millions!". Look up the numbers on what a really serious flu pandemic could do. The 1918 Flu pandemic is estimated to have killed off from 2.5% to 5% of the worlds population. Somewhere between 25 and 50 million people. A really good flu pandemic today could be MUCH worse.

Homicide results in about 16,889 US deaths a year, in the latest statistics I could get. I've no idea how much of that is related to organized crime, So it doesn't seem a stretch that bringing down a mob boss might be able to save hundreds of lives, perhaps thousands. Certainly could save more than terrorism is likely to kill in the next year.

All of which is really beside the point, because my position isn't that we shouldn't use torture because it's not needed, but that we shouldn't use it even if it WAS needed. AND, if you want to have torture as legal, where are you going to draw the lines? How many lives have to be on the line for torture to be on the table? One, twenty, a hundred, a thousand? Who decides that number?

I find that line of reasoning very flawed, to say the least. So that’s what I’m going to do.

Maybe tomorrow I'll explain.

\"In 2002, Military Agency Warned Against 'Torture'
Extreme Duress Could Yield Unreliable Information, It Said\"

Source, declassified document.

The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible -- in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life -- has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.

Good read.

The thing about the chance that torture could bring unreliable intel is, it also has brought good intel to light. So you can waterboard the guy then go out and check on the location he gives up, if no bad guys show up to plant the roadside bomb all you've done is scared one bad guy.
If all you do, on the other hand, is to make sure he has a prayer rug and a fresh copy of the Koran and tuck him in to sleep with a bed time story and the bad guys show up to plant the bomb what you have done is made sure he was comfortable while your squad of volunteers bleed out from their missing limbs in the Humvee that just got blown sky high.

So maybe us fat and lazy people back here in the soft easy world should let the guys out there in the ★■◆● decide who gets waterboarded.
And if you don't want those guys out there killing people and breaking things then don't send them out there in the first place!

Will Robinson wrote:So maybe us fat and lazy people back here in the soft easy world should let the guys out there in the ***** decide who gets waterboarded.
And if you don't want those guys out there killing people and breaking things then don't send them out there in the first place!

Well, I certainly agree that we owe the soldiers who fight for us. AND, that if we are going to send them over to fight, we need to let them actually FIGHT.

BUT, I think I may be misunderstanding exactly what you are saying above. So I have a few questions.

1: Does this mean you do NOT think that the police should be torturing people, but only the military?

2: Do you really mean that individual soldiers should be free to decide who gets tortured, or do you mean that should be a decision made by the military command structure?

3: It SOUNDS like you are saying that once we send the military out to fight, we should not hold them accountable for their actions in anyway. That there could be no criminal orders or war crimes. Surely I'm misunderstanding you on this?