Should POW's be Tortured

[SezMe]

We're talking about waterboarding. And if you are pretty much making up your own mind about what is and isn't being done based on what you want to think is happening, then there's no point in discussing it.

It was you that mentioned torture and waterboarding in the same paragraph so it seems that clarification was called for. If you want to be strict about it, the OP asks if waterboarding should be used on POWs so your scenario does not apply. Other than that, I don't know what your post is trying to say.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

My post was a response, which was a response to another. If you follow along it will make more sense. The issue was about that torture should never be used ever no matter what. So a scenario is brought up to ask people if they would support it under those circumstances. But as always, no one has the guts to answer the question and brings up things such as the post mine was responding to, which brings up the average joe. Thus implying that every average joe POW is tortured.

But the real issue here is everyone thinking that their moral line is the right one and trying to guilt others into the same moral line.

And my scenario more than applies because we're talking about using waterboarding on a POW.

 

[epeos76]

Here's the thing: Torture is wrong no matter who it is done to.

Personally, I agree. It just seems possible to me to concoct a scenario where it is difficult to explain why.

Because it isn't being used in the situations you are talking about.

How can you say this with confidence? Don't you think that, at a minimum, we should have some sort of external review in place to make sure this is always, strictly true?

And what abut the questions Darat raised? Given finite time and resources, evidence of poor results, unquantified costs, and the myriad ugly reasons humans might be drawn to torture I would much rather bet our best efforts to save the day on other means.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Unfortunately, neither law nor politics recognizes this sort of moral absolutism.

But the moral absolutism Joe speaks of has that absolutism for a reason. In the long run, those who don't torture come out as the "good guys" of the world and that can have a tremendous impact on whether you get the support of the people wherever you are fighting a war.

We had the support of the world after 9/11 even in countries like Iran. Why is that? It was because the world viewed the terrorists' actions not as some heroes fighting God's war, they viewed the actions as intolerable immorality.

All it took were Bush's decisions reflecting universal immorality to destroy the vast majority of that worldwide support. All the information you could ever hope to gain from torturing any prisoner is never going to make up for what you lost when you lost the support of the people. I'm referring to the support of the people in the county you are fighting in, not the support of your own citizens.

 

[Piggy]

But the real issue here is everyone thinking that their moral line is the right one and trying to guilt others into the same moral line.

I think we can answer this question without any reference to morality whatsoever.

The real issues are:

1. Does it work?

2. Is it, on balance, worth the negative consequences?

I think the answer to both questions is a demonstrable "No".

If we must bring morality into it, this is the sensible question:

3. Does it violate the moral standards of the majority of Americans, and if so, what are the practical consequences of engaging in it anyway? And, does it violate the moral standards of our allies, and of innocent people in the families and nations of those we may torture, and if so, what are the practical consequences of engaging in it anyway?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because it isn't being used in the situations you are talking about. There's this big misconception that torture is just used on anyone that information is needed from. That's simply not true. The waterboarding was done on a total of 4 people. And it hasn't been done in 5 years.

So they aren't doing to your average guy there, they are doing it to guys like KSM, people who have had direct hands in events such as 9/11 killing thousands of people and have potential information that might affect 1000s more.

And the issue of the ticking time bomb is very important. It proves that everyone has a line they draw and that this issue isn't about right or wrong, but people thinking that their opinion of where to draw that line is more right than others. And then those same people often try to use guilt to bully people into agreeing with their opinion. Hence the need to turn the issue into a black and white one.

Right, and Abu Ghraib was a fluke, Gitmo doesn't really exist, and we never abducted anyone in a foreign country and flew them off to any secret CIA prisons or turned anyone over to any other countries for torture.

You bought the bait and switch, hook line and sinker. Only waterboarding, according to Anne Coulter a couple minutes of fear and no real physical harm; only a couple guys, the worst of the worst directly involved in 9/11 and other terrorist acts; and only a couple times to get really really really valuable information that of course saved lives!

That's a pretty narrow tunnel your view of the Bush administration is through. And I daresay you didn't notice the white wash all around either.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So again. A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in NYC that is set to go off in 24 hours. This terrorist had previously done the same thing that cost the lives of 1000s of people. Do you let 100's of 1000s of people die to uphold your moral standard?

I would like to know how you would explain to everyone that it would have been wrong to torture the guy and that allowing all those people to die was the right thing (ALWAYS).

Yep, the TV version. That explains your position.

This is a bull**** scenario in case you still hadn't noticed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please answer the question. The question implies that information is already known. Intel has shown it and no, you don't know that the torture will get the information out of the prisoner.

It's easy to answer the TV version question. What you are missing is that it is 100% phony. That scenario is a fantasy used to excuse the real reasons for torture. I suspect some of the reasons (and there are many) is that many of the Bush people supporting torture do believe they can manage the terrorist threat by simply taking these actions. I imagine they really believe they are doing what is necessary to get information.

I'm not convinced they were using torture to intimidate a population as torture is more commonly used.

But one's motives do not mean one is using wisdom. These guys were incompetent assessing the threat before 9/11. They were incompetent managing the Iraq war after the initial invasion. What makes anyone think their use of torture was any less incompetent?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Skeptigirl, why can't you just answer the question? Stop making excuses and calling it phony. Answer the question. Yes or No? It's a simple question.

And stop pretending it's trying to justify to all torture under any condition.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yep, the TV version. That explains your position.

This is a bull**** scenario in case you still hadn't noticed.

So you're saying that it's impossible for a terrorist to get ahold of a nuclear weapon? Please provide some evidence to prove that it's impossible. And even if that were actually true, it still does not change a thing and does not change the fact that you are simply trying to avoid the question and missing the point of it.

 

[Piggy]

Skeptigirl, why can't you just answer the question? Stop making excuses and calling it phony. Answer the question. Yes or No? It's a simple question.

And stop pretending it's trying to justify to all torture under any condition.

She's not answering the question because it's a dumb question.

Ok, yeah, if you -- somehow -- absolutely know that a given person has information which can help you stop a nuclear blast, you put their balls in a meat-grinder if you need to.

But this is such an implausible scenario that it has no bearing on the very real question at hand.

The real world ain't an epsiode of "24".

 

[Jonnyclueless]

She's not answering the question because it's a dumb question.

Ok, yeah, if you -- somehow -- absolutely know that a given person has information which can help you stop a nuclear blast, you put their balls in a meat-grinder if you need to.

But this is such an implausible scenario that it has no bearing on the very real question at hand.

The real world ain't an epsiode of "24".

First of all, it's far from impossible. But the point is to show the far extreme. The other would be what some of you guys want which is that no POWs can possibly have any information that could save lives.

This proves that it's an issue of opinion on where to draw that line. Something some of you don't seem to get with your holier than thou attitude and unrealistic views of the world.

How about something a little closer to home. What if we had KSM in custody just before 9/11 and we had followed up on the intel as should have been done to know there was an up coming attack. Would that be an impossible scenario? And would you have chosen KSM's rights over the lives and families of those killed on 9/11? Or say that he had been in custody during the attacks but nothing was done with him for fear of people getting upset that we might not be nice to terrorists. Would you have any trouble explaining to the family of the dead that it would have been wrong to torture KSM in an attempt to try and prevent the attack?

yes torture is wrong, but so are a lot of things and life isn't fair. We can't have our cake and eat it too. A lot of people want the meat, but they don't want to see how the cow is slaughtered. Most everything you enjoy in life was based on someone else's suffering. There is a price for everything. And taking this unrealistic moral holier than thou stand point is just an easy way out. Gosh eveeryone will like you if you're against bad things, that's a real toughie. But of course it's 1000x more unrealistic than your show 24.

 

[Denver]

It seems that the arguments pro-torture are often around the bomb-to-kill-thousands scenario, and the arguments anti-torture are from ethical/moral ground, and from how other countries will see and treat us.

I think there is a way to accommodate both.

1) All torture should be illegal
2) If someone in authority believes so surely that a person has information that could save thousands of lives, then he can make the decision to torture, knowing full well it is illegal. If he is truly a personal of strong morals trying to make a hard decision to save lives, then he should be willing to face the consequences. If he is not willing, than he is not of a the proper moral fiber to be able to make that decision anyway.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

It seems that the arguments pro-torture are often around the bomb-to-kill-thousands scenario, and the arguments anti-torture are from ethical/moral ground, and from how other countries will see and treat us.

I think there is a way to accommodate both.

1) All torture should be illegal
2) If someone in authority believes so surely that a person has information that could save thousands of lives, then he can make the decision to torture, knowing full well it is illegal. If he is truly a personal of strong morals trying to make a hard decision to save lives, then he should be willing to face the consequences. If he is not willing, than he is not of a the proper moral fiber to be able to make that decision anyway.

The solution you just presented is the pro-torture stance. While some here want you tho think that it means 'torture anyone you can and want', that's simply not true. it simply means that some people understand that the best route is what's best for the overall good and that there can be some situations where we have to go with the lesser evil.

The only difference from what you are saying is that the law should allow a provision for such extreme cases. As opposed to an absolute rule which can put people in danger. And this is where many people in this argument aren't concerned about anyone other than themselves feeling good because they think they are more moral than others.

And as you mentioned, regardless of the laws it will still be done behind closed doors when needed. I wish torture didn't exist. I also wish for world peace, and freedom for all mankind. I wish interrogation form Al Qaeda didn't involve thinks like burning people alive and electrocuting them, or beheading them. I wish it didn't involve flying planes of innocent people into buildings to make a point or get attention. That would be nice too.

 

[Denver]

The solution you just presented is the pro-torture stance. While some here want you tho think that it means 'torture anyone you can and want', that's simply not true. it simply means that some people understand that the best route is what's best for the overall good and that there can be some situations where we have to go with the lesser evil.

The only difference from what you are saying is that the law should allow a provision for such extreme cases. As opposed to an absolute rule which can put people in danger. And this is where many people in this argument aren't concerned about anyone other than themselves feeling good because they think they are more moral than others.

And as you mentioned, regardless of the laws it will still be done behind closed doors when needed. I wish torture didn't exist. I also wish for world peace, and freedom for all mankind. I wish interrogation form Al Qaeda didn't involve thinks like burning people alive and electrocuting them, or beheading them. I wish it didn't involve flying planes of innocent people into buildings to make a point or get attention. That would be nice too.

Perhaps what I am trying to say, is that the issues of torture, about comparing lives to lives, with possibly humanity-defining repercussions, seem to me to be greater issues than our current level of law and lawmakers can really deal with, and that's what it has been such a messy issue there. Because of that, I move it outside that realm as much as possible (by making it illegal, period), and more into the realm of deep personal ethics and responsibility. The authority themselves, like everyone, sometimes needs to make a decision outside the law (stealing to feed a hungry child, torturing to save thousands of lives), and can take the consequence that way, if they believe it really is the right thing, regardless of the law.

The law never stops something from happening. It just defines the consequences of breaking it. So no matter what any law says, someone can still break it. By making it legal, we loosen and lessen the consequences, and that is what I think is wrong. Make it illegal, make the consequence significant, and then people decide. Like they do with all laws.

 

[SezMe]

The only difference from what you are saying is that the law should allow a provision for such extreme cases.

No, as Denver explained above, torture should be illegal with no exceptions. If, however, the President (for that is how high such a decision should go) decides there are overriding factors and authorizes torture, then after your silly fantasy scenario plays out, he/she should immediately resign as a matter of honor. And yes, that includes the scenario in which the torture yields useful information.

 

[Piggy]

First of all, it's far from impossible. But the point is to show the far extreme. The other would be what some of you guys want which is that no POWs can possibly have any information that could save lives.

Nonsense.

You want to deal with this question, deal with the reality we're facing right now, the facts on the ground. Don't go making up implausible claptrap.

And please, don't even try to tell me that I have to deal with your comic-book scenario -- "The world's about to explode and we KNOW that Dr. Evil can stop it if we only get the code out of him in the next 15 minutes!" -- or the other bogus extreme, that we must conclude that no POW has any information we want.

The fact that you're resorting to such middle-school games exposes the utter intellectual poverty of your position.

Now get real.

To talk about detention, torture, and war in such terms is not only useless, it's revolting.

 

[Piggy]

This proves that it's an issue of opinion on where to draw that line. Something some of you don't seem to get with your holier than thou attitude and unrealistic views of the world.

You're accusing ME of being unrealistic? That's a laugh. Or would be, if we weren't talking about torture and war.

How about something a little closer to home. What if we had KSM in custody just before 9/11 and we had followed up on the intel as should have been done to know there was an up coming attack. Would that be an impossible scenario? And would you have chosen KSM's rights over the lives and families of those killed on 9/11?

You don't get it, do you?

It's not a matter of KSM's "rights". If we had apprehended him, what sort of "rights" would he have had?

If we had tortured him, let me ask you this.... Suppose he had started to talk. At what point would we have known whether he was telling us the truth, or telling us BS so we'd stop torturing him?

And keep in mind, we're talking about people willing to kill themselves for their twisted ideology.

Suppose he had told us that a dozen men were planting a nuclear device in California designed to trigger a massive earthquake.

Would we have said, "Thanks," given him a cup of tea, and rushed off to stop the plot?

Of course not.

The trouble with information gleaned from torture is that once you start, you never know when you've gotten correct information or bad information. And the narrower the timeframe (as in your imaginary scenarios) the more this spoiler comes into play because you don't have time to verify.

Your entire scenario relies upon having known then what we know now in retrospect -- which, if it had been true then, would have removed the need for the interrogation in the first place.

Or say that he had been in custody during the attacks but nothing was done with him for fear of people getting upset that we might not be nice to terrorists.

That is not even worthy of a reply. "Nice to terrorists"? Again, you're indulging in a comic-book fantasy of the world, not reality.

Would you have any trouble explaining to the family of the dead that it would have been wrong to torture KSM in an attempt to try and prevent the attack?

But I'm not arguing about right and wrong. I'm not arguing about morals. I'm talking about what works and doesn't, about actions and consequences.

Most everything you enjoy in life was based on someone else's suffering. There is a price for everything. And taking this unrealistic moral holier than thou stand point is just an easy way out. Gosh eveeryone will like you if you're against bad things, that's a real toughie. But of course it's 1000x more unrealistic than your show 24.

Go back and read my posts. You're projecting your own unfounded biases on me. I fully understand that my soft life is built on others' grief. I'm not holier-than-thou... in fact, I admit to being totally amoral. I don't talk in terms of "bad things".

When you grow up, come back and we'll talk.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No, as Denver explained above, torture should be illegal with no exceptions. If, however, the President (for that is how high such a decision should go) decides there are overriding factors and authorizes torture, then after your silly fantasy scenario plays out, he/she should immediately resign as a matter of honor. And yes, that includes the scenario in which the torture yields useful information.

No, that's not acceptable. To make laws and then break them when convenient? For one thing, the president wouldn't have the authority to break the law. And then to expect them to do so and resign for it? And for what? Because you want a black and white absolute rule so you can feel like you are morally superior.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She's not answering the question because it's [a dumb an irrelevant] question.

Ok, yeah, if you -- somehow -- absolutely know that a given person has information which can help you stop a nuclear blast, you put their balls in a meat-grinder if you need to.

But this is such an implausible scenario that it has no bearing on the very real question at hand.

The real world ain't an epsiode of "24".

Actually, as Piggy says, the answer is rather obvious but has nothing to do with the torture question in the real world.