DescentBB

woodchip wrote:The sad saga comes to a end with the capture of the 2nd suspect. Now lets dust off the old Bush era water treatment so we can wring all the info out of him that we can.

I don't think they'll have any problem with getting information out of him. He was probably under the influence of his older brother and following his lead like a puppy. Since he's now dead, he'll probably be scared out of his mind without his mentor and blab all sorts of stuff. If he'd been a true martyr, he would have died in the final gunfight or killed himself.

CUDA wrote:Funny I don't think Bin-Ladin would agree with you since we got him with information obtained by enhanced interrogation.

There's a lot of controversy over that. McCain vehemently disagrees. It's one of those "he said, he said" situations.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/waterboa ... d=13616668

Look, let me be blunt: if we view stooping to that level as an acceptable means to an end, then we've already lost this "war," at least in the moral sense. There isn't any justification you can make for it. And yes, that includes tracking down bin Laden.

On a related note, our illustrious Senators Graham and McCain, among a few others, are calling for the arrested suspect to be handled as an "enemy combatant," so that he need not be provided with access to a lawyer. Y'know, despite the fact that he's an American citizen, and not a "combatant" in any sense of the word. I'm so glad that our elected officials apparently neglected to read the Constitution that they've sworn to uphold and protect. Just disgusting. It's especially disappointing in McCain's case: I once had a great deal of respect for him, but statements like this have managed to erode most of it.

And, the police deliberately DIDN'T read him his Miranda Rights. A prelude to having a tribunal instead of a civilian trail?

Actually, the decision to not read the Miranda rights was justified by a "public safety exemption," which was laid out in the Supreme Court case New York v. Quarles. Essentially, if an officer has a reasonable concern that there's a threat to public safety that information from the suspect could alleviate, they're able to proceed without reading the Miranda rights. Given the number of IEDs these two suspects were tossing around during that car chase last night, I'm pretty okay with this exception being applied here, just so officials are sure that there aren't any other devices stashed away somewhere.

What TG…you don’t like to be lumped in with Z…how does it feel?

Funny how none of your types gave me any of the same credit for some of the things I said after 911, that was purely anger talking.

Hell, my memory is not that good, but you may have actually been one of the ones that reamed me a new one.

So of course if he says something stupid in response to a horrendous act, he gets the benefit of the doubt…but not me.

Uh...insecure much? I'm not even sure that I was posting here in 2001 (profile history only goes back to '04, though I know the earlier stuff was archived somewhere), but even if I was, that probably wouldn't have been my attitude back then: I was a sophomore in high school, and a far different person than I am now. Regardless, why are you hearkening back to what people may or may not have said a full 12 years ago?

And again with the "your types," which is pretty hilarious. I mean I suppose we're exactly the same if we're grouping things as the American far-right vs. everyone else, but we're sure as hell not by any other definition.

I used the example of 12 years ago because it was the only personal example I could think of, where I said something similar.

You think there may be something wrong with my understanding skills because I don’t see a difference between suggesting torture for revenge vs. torture for interrogation, I guess you might be right, because I can’t tell if either one of them was serious or not.

As far as the “your types” I was just busting on Cob’s way of putting things at first, then you took offence, so I couldn’t resist doing it again. But quite honestly…I do see you both as two peas in a pod, with all the personal insults you both like to dish out.

Top Gun wrote:Look, let me be blunt: if we view stooping to that level as an acceptable means to an end, then we've already lost this "war," at least in the moral sense. There isn't any justification you can make for it. And yes, that includes tracking down bin Laden. ....

The moral high ground is wonderful place to stand back and declare aspirations for a more civil planet. And I think we do a really good job of trying to keep things moving in that direction.
However I don't try to fool myself into thinking there is some kind of superiority of character to be claimed for refusing to waterboard some terrorist and yet be quite firm in our right to nuke cities full of children and other innocents if things get too desperate or even just difficult as we have done in the past. You aren't fooling anyone trying to have it both ways.

It just doesn't do us any good at all to pretend we won't do whatever we decide is justified when we are faced with a threat. And I think it is even worse, much worse, to have our leaders come out after the fact and say we don't do those kind of things when the whole world knows good and damn well we have and will continue to do so at our sole discretion!

We would be much more effective to be blunt about it and say, simply, yes we aspire to use humane methods in both war and peacetime when ever we can and yet we will burn your whole frikkin country down to a glowing cinderbox without warning if we feel we have to!
And, yes, that includes scaring the crap out of you with a bucket of water and a towel if you are thought to be one of the more dangerous types we encounter.
To avoid such situations you would do well to not provoke us.

CUDA wrote:Funny I don't think Bin-Ladin would agree with you since we got him with information obtained by enhanced interrogation.

an assertion strongly denied by everyone except one movie script writer......frankly, I suspect none of us know for sure.

Top Gun wrote:Look, let me be blunt: if we view stooping to that level as an acceptable means to an end, then we've already lost this "war," at least in the moral sense. There isn't any justification you can make for it. And yes, that includes tracking down bin Laden.

We've already stooped that low, and we're still are stooping that low. For a country that touts it's moral values, it's a big, fat smear on our nation's moral integrity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/world ... ludes.html

Yea, terrorism tends to bring out the best in people.

But do you violate your own morals and scruples just to "possibly" stop them before they do something. I say "possibly" because there's no proof that torture even gets us the information we need.

But on the other hand TC, lawyering them up won't get information either

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Funny I don't think Bin-Ladin would agree with you since we got him with information obtained by enhanced interrogation.

an assertion strongly denied by everyone except one movie script writer......frankly, I suspect none of us know for sure.

That is absolutely false.
The fact that enhanced interrogation led to finding bin Ladin's courier who they followed to the compound was disclosed before the movie was released and begrudgingly verified by Panetta and others in the government. It is most likely that the screenwriter incorporated that fact into the movie after it was revealed.

But as usual you don't bother with reality when you make assertions. You just make them to suit your rhetoric.

sorry Will, but that has been vehemently denied on several occaisions. I'm not saying it is or isn't true, just that very public denials have been made.

callmeslick wrote:sorry Will, but that has been vehemently denied on several occaisions. I'm not saying it is or isn't true, just that very public denials have been made.

Oh, ok....that makes a world of difference! /sarcasm

My mother vehemently denied my father wasn't 'Santa Claus' when my youngest brother was told the truth about the matter.

Leon Panetta twice says water boarding led to Bin Laden capture.

woodchip wrote:But on the other hand TC, lawyering them up won't get information either

I didn't say "lawyering up" is the solution. I said there's no proof torture gets the information the authorities want. I didn't exclude any interrogations or manipulations, just that the torture is part and parcel with "enhanced interrogation" and that is a violation of our moral convictions, if we as a nation have any left that is by now. Anytime torture is used to maybe get information from some suspect, our nation suffers a loss of it's moral standing. We're just hypocrites in the eyes of the world. If you don't like that, go over join the Syrian Army, or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, or any other group that uses torture as a form of terror. Come to think of it, we screwed ourselves with the Abu Ghraib fiasco and ruined any possibility of remaining friends with the Iraqis.

CUDA wrote:Leon Panetta twice says water boarding led to Bin Laden capture

And then he said that it may NOT have been needed. He's speaking out both sides of his mouth. Even worse, he's indicating that our country soiled it's moral stance for NO NECESSARY REASON.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/ ... B720130203

Reuters wrote:Panetta did not elaborate on how this might have been done, but said most of the intelligence used to find bin Laden had been stitched together without resort to enhanced interrogation.

tunnelcat wrote:And then he said that it "MAY" not have been needed.

fixed it for you.. which in actual English says yes it was useful. "maybe" we could have gotten this information with out it, but it did provide us with valuable Intel.

plus when point blank asked by Brian Williams if the enhanced interrogation did not get any useful information, he wouldn't answer the question.
you don't think he was covering his Bosses backside in how he said things??

Either Panetta's lying or he's covering up the continued use (of which Obama is obviously guilty) of enhanced interrogation. Does it matter? Torture is an evil, twisted, sadomasochistic pleasure trip for some people, no matter what "good" someone uses to justify it. The price of our souls is now pretty cheap I'd say if we continue to use and condone this BS.

So you know I have to ask you this CUDA, as a good Christian and follower of Jesus, do you approve of torture by any administration for any reason? Is any tiny smidgen of information worth the sacrifice of our morals?

tunnelcat wrote:Either Panetta's lying or he's covering up the continued use (of which Obama is obviously guilty) of enhanced interrogation.

No, those aren't the only choices. He admitted the techniques led to the location and death of bin Ladin. He also decided, or someone above him told him, to then stick with the story that bin Ladin could have been discovered without it. Technically, in an anything is possible world, that is also true. But it isn't very likely.
Regardless of what you think, or what you prefer we do, the enhanced techniques that Obama railed against when he was a candidate/Senator are THE REASON he was able to claim the title of the 'one who got bin Ladin" when he later became President.
That bugs the crap out of the left but then the truth often does...

Does it matter? ..

Of course it does. It invalidates the assertion that it doesn't work.

If one of my daughters were kidnapped and held hostage and the suspect wouldn't tell me where she was I would do ANYTHING to make him tell me even though I also think we should give the remaining Boston bomber miranda rights and treat him as criminal, not a terrorist.
If, during the subsequent investigation we discover he holds valuable intel of impending attacks then ship his ass off to GITMO fast and waterboard the crap out of him!
It is always about the value of the intel and how desperate we are to get it. And it has ALWAYS been that way and most likely always will be because under duress and imminent danger the law of nature trumps the law of man. "Civilized treatment" is just a cloak we wrap our nature in for as long and as often as it serves our purposes. It doesn't mean that cloak is a farce, it just means it is a tool that sometimes doesn't work well for the job at hand. Virtue for virtues sake is a fairy tale concept, good for programming children to pursue civility. Pragmatism is a better concept for developing life saving tactics.

You would be willing to torture and inflict pain upon another human being in order to save your daughter? Do you have any humanity or moral scruples at all? Even if I had a child who had been kidnapped and that maybe torturing someone might get me some information as to my child's whereabouts (there is no good evidence that torture actually works), I wouldn't be able to live with myself or keep my soul from being haunted afterwards. There are better mind tactics to get the information from people who don't want to divulge things. Sometimes, the ends DO NOT justify the means. I am not a sadist.

Oh CUDA, you dodged the question. Do you accept, within your beliefs, that torture is a viable interrogation method to use upon another human being?

I’m waiting for someone to explain some of these superior techniques, because I’m starting to believe they are just figments of some peoples imagination.

One technique for getting someone to talk: Addict them to a narcotic and then deny them any dosage till they talk, which won't be very long. There is no guarantee of the reliability of what they say though, because if they don't have any useful information they will say ANYTHING if they think you want to hear it in order to get the next dose.

It isn't visibly violent so some people might be more willing to support it, but it is worse than violence in its own way.

tunnelcat wrote:You would be willing to torture and inflict pain upon another human being in order to save your daughter?

Sure would. Hell I even do that to varying degrees almost every time I buy something made in China, and you do too.

(there is no good evidence that torture actually works)

You keep saying that as if it were true. It isn't. Go ask bin Ladin.....oh yea...you can't because we tortured some guy to find out where he was and then we killed him.

It certainly isn't foolproof but it can be quite effective and in my hypothetical you are asking me to risk my daughters life in deference for her kidnapper's well being. Sorry that is an easy choice for me to make. You take care of yours and Ill take care of mine.
For me I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't do everything I could.

By the way that isn't sadism, I never said I would get off on it. Do you think all judges are sadists? Jailers? Etc?

The ends never justify the means when it comes to torture.

christ that's absolutely repugnant.

Ferno wrote:The ends never justify the means when it comes to torture.

christ that's absolutely repugnant.

Who is the grand arbiter of the definition of "justify"?

tunnelcat wrote:You would be willing to torture and inflict pain upon another human being in order to save your daughter? Do you have any humanity or moral scruples at all?

Pain VS life? Is that what your argument boils down to? That's an easy choice to make. Geez. That's not the argument against torture. The only valid argument that comes to mind is that a person should be innocent until proven guilty in a court of their peers, and that a person can only be punished for crimes they have (past-tense) committed. Innocent until proven guilty is not a benefit of U.S. citizenship, it is a U.S. law (I think I've said otherwise in the past). I would be open to discussion on the topic of torture to avert imminent death, but I think it ought to go through some official channels or else be deemed strictly illegal. Military is something else, in my mind, but you can't mix military and civilian and then claim it's military business....

Ferno wrote:The ends never justify the means when it comes to torture.

christ that's absolutely repugnant.

agreed.....once you head down that path(and we seem to have done so, again), you essentially degrade your own society to the point where the opposition has achieved moral equivalency.

Will Robinson wrote:

Ferno wrote:The ends never justify the means when it comes to torture.

christ that's absolutely repugnant.

Who is the grand arbiter of the definition of "justify"?

any excuse('saving lives', 'protecting my family', whatever....) is, by definition, 'justification'.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Ferno wrote:The ends never justify the means when it comes to torture.

christ that's absolutely repugnant.

Who is the grand arbiter of the definition of "justify"?

any excuse('saving lives', 'protecting my family', whatever....) is, by definition, 'justification'.

Ferno's objection to the use of torture is based on a lack of justification, he implies torture would be acceptable if not for his declared lack of justification.

There are great and powerful imams who give their flock authority to torture infidels.... they issue fatwas to demand it and there is the justification.
We in America don't agree with that and give no justification to those same islamo-fascists to kill infidels.

So we have established there are varying definitions of justification because there is no supreme authority to define justification for the whole species.
We have people deciding for themselves what is 'justified'. We sometimes decide as a group and use governments that represent us to deliver capital punishment, certainly one of the highest forms of torture is to know you are helpless and about to be put to death. We justify the means to that end.

So under my hypothetical, in a country where I can shoot someone and kill them if they pose an imminent threat to myself or others because it is deemed a 'justifiable' homicide by the authority, I would certainly scare someone with a bucket of water and a towel if I felt it was justified by my child being in imminent danger.

It is wrong to say the ends never justify the means as a blanket rule. Sometimes they do. If we, as americans compelled our congress to pass a law saying I can torture someone who kidnapped my child then it is justified by the authority we americans live under. So ultimately the ends always justify the means if we say they do...

Personally I would do it if I was in that unique position to have access to the kidnapper and believed he might tell me where my child was. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't do it. Fernos opinion be damned.

callmeslick wrote:

Ferno wrote:The ends never justify the means when it comes to torture.

christ that's absolutely repugnant.

agreed.....once you head down that path(and we seem to have done so, again), you essentially degrade your own society to the point where the opposition has achieved moral equivalency.

The opposition doesn't care if it has equivalency or not! They do what they do regardless of what we think about it. In fact the success of terrorism depends on their being able to be monstrously evil in our minds. Walking down what you perceive as "the moral high road" gives no tactical advantage especially if the opposition doesn't see that road as anything except a good place for an ambush.

Will Robinson wrote:The opposition doesn't care if it has equivalency or not! They do what they do regardless of what we think about it. In fact the success of terrorism depends on their being able to be monstrously evil in our minds.

agreed, Will....but, the ONLY way we will prevail, and it is a prevalence that will take, likely, generations, is to be seen as the morally superior side of the issues. When we stoop to a base level, we lose that, and thus(IMHO, I realize, not universally shared)the chance at EVER ending the cycle. It has long been shown that you cannot kill terrorism out of existence, in fact, it tends to create even more terrorists.

Walking down what you perceive as "the moral high road" gives no tactical advantage especially if the opposition doesn't see that road as anything except a good place for an ambush.

clearly, I disagree, for the reasons stated above.

Spidey wrote:I’m waiting for someone to explain some of these superior techniques, because I’m starting to believe they are just figments of some peoples imagination.

Oh, there are some clever mind games that can be played that work very well on people under stress. And Krom came up with a viable idea too. You're just not creative Spidey.


Will and Thorne, Ferno's right and I think you're both sadists. Go back under your bridges and guard them. Inflicting pain and injury on another human being just for the purpose of getting information out of them is just plain evil and sadistic. There is no good evidence that it can illicit any useful information. It's mostly a tool of terror, not one of justice. It's also a tool of revenge, not detective work. Last I looked, we used to be a nation of justice. In fact, interrogators are more likely to get false information, not the right information. We may never know how or where the information came from to get Bin Laden. Everyone is butt covering right now. We can't get a straight answer from a government that positively used torture in the past, and doesn't want to admit that it's STILL using it now.

Here's the scoop right out of John McCain's mouth about the death of Bin Laden and the information we used to find him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... print.html

John McCain wrote:I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.

In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.

As for torture working, not so fast all you revenge-loving sadists.

http://harpers.org/blog/2009/09/torture ... gist-says/

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworl ... ure22.html

tunnelcat wrote:...

Will and Thorne, Ferno's right and I think you're both sadists. Go back under your bridges and guard them. Inflicting pain and injury on another human being just for the purpose of getting information out of them is just plain evil and sadistic. There is no good evidence that it can illicit any useful information. It's mostly a tool of terror, not one of justice. It's also a tool of revenge, not detective work. Last I looked, we used to be a nation of justice. In fact, interrogators are more likely to get false information, not the right information. We may never know how or where the information came from to get Bin Laden. Everyone is butt covering right now. We can't get a straight answer from a government that positively used torture in the past, and doesn't want to admit that it's STILL using it now.

Here's the scoop right out of John McCain's mouth about the death of Bin Laden and the information we used to find him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... print.html

John McCain wrote:I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.

In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.

As for torture working, not so fast all you revenge-loving sadists.

http://harpers.org/blog/2009/09/torture ... gist-says/

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworl ... ure22.html

John McCain is definitely not a reliable source for the topic. One of his character cornerstones (marketing tool for a Senator War Hero) is his adamant disregard for torture. He will spin it as being completely useless....yet he was tortured and gave up enough intel to keep himself alive in the POW camps in VietNam...
He has every right to oppose it but he's an outright liar to say it won't work. It isn't great but it can work. Like setting a back burn in a forest fire, you lose some of what you intend to protect but sometimes its the best choice that you are left with.

You can keep throwing the 'sadist' label up there but it doesn't stick. I take no pleasure in the torture we have done and wouldn't enjoy doing it if my hypothetical scenario played out for real but I'd do it and suffer the chore because it would be pragmatic. Pragmatism trumps idealism in certain instances...in most actually.
It would be the right thing to do if I had no other means to save my child. Unless you can explain how killing people who pose an iminent threat is acceptable but scaring them into thinking they were going to die isn't I'll have to continue with the knowledge that you just aren't making sense.

When do I get my "DBB Sadist" title? Seriously? Pain VS life and I'm a sadist for choosing pain? I think that's incredible. Now inflicting certain levels of psychological trauma on a person may be crossing the line into evil, at some point, if it's unjust, but I don't see where inflicting pain is wrong unless it's injustice. Frankly if someone has kidnapped someone's daughter, with intent to murder, justice is just nowhere near them. Now and again you hear about a relative "kidnapping" a relatives child, and that's a totally different matter.

I just want to interject that I think we as Americans have never been told the truth about what our government instigates in the middle-east, and abroad in general. As far as I'm concerned the Muslims are a troubled people who resist a country run by a government that has legitimately encroached on their interests, and out of that mess comes radicals who feel the answer is wholesale slaughter. If you ask me it's bad business all around. Kill the murdering radicals, but don't pretend like our country hasn't been screwing people over there, and terrorism is some kind of one-sided threat instead of the overflow of a big complicated mess.

Will Robinson wrote:
Who is the grand arbiter of the definition of "justify"?

You know damned well who.

Ferno's objection to the use of torture is based on a lack of justification, he implies torture would be acceptable if not for his declared lack of justification.

BZZT wrong. not even close. try again.

There are great and powerful imams who give their flock authority to torture infidels.... they issue fatwas to demand it and there is the justification.
We in America don't agree with that and give no justification to those same islamo-fascists to kill infidels.

so.. just because they do it, means it's okay for you to do it? try again.

Earlier today, I figured you'd either pull a left/right excuse or a 'they do it too' excuse. I wasn't even suprised when I saw this. As far as I'm concerned Will, you have lost all moral authority. The more justification you do, the less anyone should even pay attention to. The rest of your argument just sickens me.

I'll say it again, just so it sticks. Just because they do it, does NOT give you the right to do it. You CANNOT claim yourself as better if you are willing to head down that road.

It would be the right thing to do if I had no other means to save my child.

aaand what do you think is going to happen when your child finds out you tortured someone? They're not going to care that you did it 'to save them'. No. They'll look at you like a monster.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
Who is the grand arbiter of the definition of "justify"?

You know damned well who.

No, I don't! Answer it because unless you have a good answer for it the rest of your post is just pure wrong or posturing!

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno's objection to the use of torture is based on a lack of justification, he implies torture would be acceptable if not for his declared lack of justification.

BZZT wrong. not even close. try again.

No, actually I'm not guessing at your intention there. The implication I cite is inherent to the concept of "justification". The very essence of the word demands that there is a line that separates just and unjust!
Maybe you need to find another reason to declare torture is wrong in all cases that doesn't depend on justification....otherwise BZZT you are the one who is wrong.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:There are great and powerful imams who give their flock authority to torture infidels.... they issue fatwas to demand it and there is the justification.
We in America don't agree with that and give no justification to those same islamo-fascists to kill infidels.

so.. just because they do it, means it's okay for you to do it? try again.

You are confused. I don't think it is justified to kill infidels, or anyone just because they don't share my belief system as they do.
Also, I'm the one who said I don't think we should treat the Boston bombers as combatants and that we should treat them as criminals with rights because they are americans.
Unless they hold the key to stopping an imminent mortal threat.

However.....

I contrasted that with the hypothetical scenario of my daughter kidnapped and her kidnapper wasn't telling us where she was...in that case, if I believe there is an imminent threat, I am justified to use enhanced techniques to get him to talk. It might be illegal but it is no different than me shooting a carjacker who jumps in our car and says he'll kill her if I don't do as he says....which is totally legal and justified by the authority on 'justification' See, back to the first part....give me a higher authority that should preempt my interpretation of justification and I'll listen. So be sure you answered that first part, or as I said, you are just all wrong in this discussion based on your dependence on justification as the benchmark.

Ferno wrote:Earlier today, I figured you'd either pull a left/right excuse or a 'they do it too' excuse. I wasn't even suprised when I saw this. As far as I'm concerned Will, you have lost all moral authority. The more justification you do, the less anyone should even pay attention to. The rest of your argument just sickens me.

I'll say it again, just so it sticks. Just because they do it, does NOT give you the right to do it. You CANNOT claim yourself as better if you are willing to head down that road.

Ahh, but I don't claim to be better! I'm the one who rejects the false honor that you seem to promote here. We are just like they are only officially we are dishonest compared to them. We claim we don't torture but of course we do.

Here's an exercise for you:
Two countries.
Both say torture is bad.
Both use torture in some/same cases.
One claims they don't torture, the other admits that they do.
You are telling me the one who lies about it has the moral authority over the other....

You are fooling yourself.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:It would be the right thing to do if I had no other means to save my child.

aaand what do you think is going to happen when your child finds out you tortured someone? They're not going to care that you did it 'to save them'. No. They'll look at you like a monster.

Why do you think that? They aren't stupid! They would have known better than anyone that they were in imminent danger and the criminal had forfeited his own security by being the source of danger. My children would be grateful that the good person was saved and they would feel sorry for the bad person but they wouldn't think I did anything wrong. If I had the chance to save them and didn't then they would have something bad to say about me though...and every right to.

I am utterly opposed to torture of any kind.

It’s very easy to talk a good game when it comes to moral principals, but much harder to adhere to them when the human survival instinct kicks in.

I am also opposed to killing any and all life, but I’ll take yours in an instant, if you threaten mine, so I guess I have to commend Will for his honesty, and question some of the others here.

In Wills scenario, I can’t really say if I would torture someone or not, probably not, due to my easy going nature, but I’m not sure I wouldn’t pull out my piece and stick it in their mouth and threaten to pull the trigger…and mean it!

Of course if I killed them, there would be no chance of getting any info from them…but that’s kind of my point…anger, fear and frustration, tend to overwhelm proper behavior.

And people who think they couldn’t react the same way…are fools. I think we had a similar discussion before, where a lot of people thought they could predict their actions in every scenario…lol. Ego talks a good game too.

Ferno wrote:The ends never justify the means when it comes to torture.

christ that's absolutely repugnant.

So you don't mind the torturous use of drones to maim and kill the people around the target ?