- #141
NeoDevin
- 334
- 2
seycyrus said:I do not think that transient discomfort qualifies as torture. Note the word "transient".
Could you please clarify for me precisely how you're defining "transient discomfort".
seycyrus said:I do not think that transient discomfort qualifies as torture. Note the word "transient".
I would hazard to say (if I may be so presumptuous) anything that does not leave a lasting physical or psychological mark. Waterboarding will make the victim think he's drowning and provoke a panic reaction but, if done properly, the victim is in no actual danger and will ultimately be none the worse (except for, apparently, a few weeks of drowning nightmares.)NeoDevin said:Could you please clarify for me precisely how you're defining "transient discomfort".
So, your conclusion is that certain forms of torture ore OK for the good guys? Can we still call ourselves good guys?getitright said:Waterboarding isn't in that league.
Count Iblis said:The Iranians have caught a US citizen who is presumed to be a special forces member. The Iranians know that he was on a some mission to sabotage their nuclear program. The Iranians want to track down his Iranian contacts.
The Iranians want to make sure the US citizen is not treated in a way that is incompatible with US law. Does this mean that they could still use waterboarding?
drankin said:Did this special forces person have knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack on Iranian civilians? Then I would say yes.
BoomBoom said:...and even if he didn't, I'm sure the false information could be extracted from him.
drankin said:Probably, but that wouldn't be a reason not to try in order to save your own countrymen.
Source?Count Iblis said:The Iranians have caught a US citizen who is presumed to be a special forces member. The Iranians know that he was on a some mission to sabotage their nuclear program. The Iranians want to track down his Iranian contacts.
mheslep said:Source?
Hence, there are an infinite number of $\O$-regions with identical histories up to the present, but which need not be identical in the future. Moreover, all histories which are not forbidden by conservation laws will occur in a finite fraction of all $\O$-regions. The ensemble of $\O$-regions is reminiscent of the ensemble of universes in the many-world picture of quantum mechanics. An important difference, however, is that other $\O$-regions are unquestionably real.
Count Iblis said:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010"
BoomBoom said:Jack Bauer would be so proud...
I missed you were posting a hypothetical.Count Iblis said:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102010"
brainy kevin said:Meanwhile, an group in Iraq used "conventional" tactics, no torture whatsoever, and with the information they gained, they captured Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Source?brainy kevin said:...They even threatened to torture his daughter, and he still refused to talk. ...
mheslep said:Source?
Sure, if you believe it's OK to steal if they need it and the people stolen from can afford it. They might even rationalize it by claiming that taking from someone who "can easily afford it" to help someone who "needs it" isn't "really" stealing.DaveC426913 said:By analogy, certain forms of crime are OK for citizens. Are they still upstanding citizens if they merely shoplift?
Really??Al68 said:Sure, if you believe it's OK to steal if they need it and the people stolen from can afford it. They might even rationalize it by claiming that taking from someone who "can easily afford it" to help someone who "needs it" isn't "really" stealing.
Really. And if a large group of people do this long enough, they might even develop a moral code that actually glorifies such theft.DaveC426913 said:Really??Al68 said:Sure, if you believe it's OK to steal if they need it and the people stolen from can afford it. They might even rationalize it by claiming that taking from someone who "can easily afford it" to help someone who "needs it" isn't "really" stealing.
No. I mean do you really believe this? You believe that believe it's OK to steal if they need it and the people stolen from can afford it?Al68 said:Really. And if a large group of people do this long enough, they might even develop a moral code that actually glorifies such theft.
russ_watters said:Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?
DaveC426913 said:By analogy, a bank robber might consider himself as committing a lesser crime than a serial murderer. But I would treat them both as the criminals they are.
Whether or not our methods are not as bad as someone elses, unacceptable is unacceptable. And we don't redefine what is acceptable based on what the bad guys do.
wittgenstein said:"You are also assuming that torture works, when we know it usually doesn't. You are more likely to get false information that will only delay your cause."
Ivan Seeking
I agree and we are on the same side of this issue. However, you are missing the point. Cheney etc are not stupid.They knew that torture gives false information and that is exactly what they wanted, a ( manufactured) connection between Saddam and 911.
russ_watters said:Here's a question that might be tough to consider in the context of this discussion: why is it acceptable to torture our own soldiers as part of their training?
Yes we we can speculate why it is advantageous to do this. Russ's question was why is it acceptable? There are no doubt many other things that could be done to soldiers that might give them a narrow advantage (drugs, brainwashing) if ethics are not a consideration. And many critics of water boarding argue that the psychological effects do not pass ( I don't know)BobG said:Virtually every POW will eventually break under torture. He'll confess to committing war crimes, denounce the US, and, most importantly, sell out his fellow POWs - anything to make the torture stop. The torture, especially something like waterboarding that doesn't cause permanent physical damage, will pass. The psychological trauma of selling out everything important to him, even the only friends left in his world, will be pretty tough to recover from unless he knows going in that he's not committing some unspeakably despicable act by breaking under torture.
Am I missing something? They are volunteers.mheslep said:Yes we we can speculate why it is advantageous to do this. Russ's question was why is it acceptable? There are no doubt many other things that could be done to soldiers that might give them a narrow advantage (drugs, brainwashing) if ethics are not a consideration. And many critics of water boarding argue that the psychological effects do not pass ( I don't know)
wbrad320 said:If waterboarding is torture then why has the U.S waterboarded thousands of our own soldiers? And why have we never heard as much outcry for them, but the media explodes over the waterboarding of only 3 terrorists who were thought to hold valuable information concerning American lives?
mheslep said:Yes we we can speculate why it is advantageous to do this. Russ's question was why is it acceptable? There are no doubt many other things that could be done to soldiers that might give them a narrow advantage (drugs, brainwashing) if ethics are not a consideration. And many critics of water boarding argue that the psychological effects do not pass ( I don't know)
This is a silly argument for obvious reasons.wbrad320 said:What the U.S doesn't do is slowly cut their fingers off one by one and then sow em back on and say, " now you'll be prepared for if this really does happen to you"-(that would be torture).