Iraq vet waterboards daughter

[MotoH]

spanking does not instill the fear of imminent death. waterboarding does.

Hell yeah it does. It was the apocalypse every time I got spanked.

 

[Char. Limit]

Moto, I wanted to look at one of your early comments. You said never to touch a woman or child. Just making sure, but you seem to imply that torturing adult males is OK. Perhaps especially if they look like a terrorist... right?

Good, because there's someone I don't like at work, and I'm sure if I waterboard him, he'll admit to anything I want him to.

And for those few who don't get it, I don't actually hold that belief. I believe that waterboarding is torture and that torture is inherently wrong, as well as against the Geneva Convention.

 

[humanino]

If you have not seen it already, there are plenty of them


So, if you thing those stupid videos are invalid as an argument, I'm sorry to bring that but it is so obvious : why do you not try it for yourself ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, why don't you try it and let us know what you think? Clearly you think it is no big deal, so why not?

 

[drankin]

I think we should allow torture under reasonable predefined circumstances and conditions. As far as psychological damage, legal immunity.

 

[arildno]

BTW your Ulpian quote hardly constitutes an "intellectual discussion" on torture. The person(?) simply made an observation that evidence obtained through torture can be unreliable. No kidding.

It's better than your own hysterical rantings, though. And that's why I referred to it.

 

[arildno]

Not less verifiable, just not more verifiable.

Nobody who thinks such techniques can, occasionally, be justified, has ever said anything else.

Again, torture can, either by itself, or in conjunction with other interrogation methods reach the result QUICKER than not using torture.

And that is, basically, what you and others try to deny.

 

[Huckleberry]

What I'm looking for is for someone to explain why waterboarding is wrong, without just applying the label "torture" and the criteria that it is by definition wrong. Thats a cop-out that let's you dodge the issue. It let's you avoid having to justify the position with logic.

Ie, what, specifically, about waterboarding makes it "torture" and makes it wrong (since people like the label, let's get a description/justification of both)? Ivan mentioned the time someone can withstand it. That seems like a pretty weak criteria to me, since it implies that any act that applies pain (or is discompfort, like a bad smell enough?) for less time or could be withstood for more time would be acceptable.

This is also why I am asking people to deal with the status of spanking. I want people to explain why one is acceptable and another isn't, when both are all about physical pain.

These are difficult issues that can't be dealt with properly by oversimplifying. You can't understand them if you don't jump into the middle of them and deal with them.

Waterboarding is torture because it fits the definition for torture given by the UN Convention Against Torture. It intentionally causes severe mental suffering and can also cause severe physical suffering and death, even when done properly. Hitchens description of the waiver he had to sign relieved the waterboarders of any injury or death resulting from waterboarding. SERE trainees must also sign a waiver before their instruction begins, though they are, or were, subjected to other forms of torture as well.

I'm assuming that you are looking for a logical reason that would make waterboarding 'wrong.' When applying logic to moral issues it is possible to justify almost any position. Once justified, the new position becomes morally acceptable. That should be reason enough to reject waterboarding or other torture.

But when is waterboarding 'right'? Particularly when the technique is used to extract information from a suspect who has not been found guilty through verifiable evidence, it circumvents the entire justice process. Guilt or innocence is no longer a factor in who can or should be tortured. The suspect is forced to confess against himself, whether the information is truthful or not. The only important factor in interrogation becomes the possibility of useful information, and any human rights are suspended. There is no trial by a jury of peers, and the public is not privy to the details of the interrogation. The suspect is found guilty, and villified as such, based on a belief. This belief is then used to justify a logical reason to waterboard the suspect. Institutionalized waterboarding tears down the infrastructure of all our existing laws based on individual freedoms and equality.

Neither spanking nor waterboarding are all about physical pain. The emotional and psychological aspects of each are more severe and more lasting. They are both a trade-off between short term results and long term effects. Also, many parents would disagree that spanking is acceptable.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm assuming that you are looking for a logical reason that would make waterboarding 'wrong.' When applying logic to moral issues it is possible to justify almost any position. Once justified, the new position becomes morally acceptable. That should be reason enough to reject waterboarding or other torture.

You lost me on this paragraph. Could you explain, more gently, what you mean (especially how the final sentence follows from the previous ones)?

 

[MotoH]

Moto, I wanted to look at one of your early comments. You said never to touch a woman or child. Just making sure, but you seem to imply that torturing adult males is OK. Perhaps especially if they look like a terrorist... right?

Good, because there's someone I don't like at work, and I'm sure if I waterboard him, he'll admit to anything I want him to.

And for those few who don't get it, I don't actually hold that belief. I believe that waterboarding is torture and that torture is inherently wrong, as well as against the Geneva Convention.

Does he have full facial hair and says "Allahu Ackbar" and "Insh'allah" a lot?


If a Female was a terrorist and knew information that is critical for the mission, She would be interrogated until the information is released.

Children just need candy and they will talk and talk.

 

[BobG]

WAY too simplistic!

Perhaps you should read a bit about how people who actually USED torture judged the matter.

This is how the Romans thought of the reliability/unreliability of torture, and the intellectual level of that discussion is way over what you manage:

...
21) The magistrate in charge of the torture ought not directly to put the interrogation whether Lucius Titius committed the homicide, but he should ask in general terms who did it; for the other way rather seems to suggest an answer than to ask for one. This the Divine Trajan stated in a Rescript.


(22) The Divine Hadrian stated the following in a Rescript addressed to Calpurnius Celerianus: "Agricola, the slave of Pompeius Valens, may be interrogated concerning himself; but if, while undergoing torture, he should say anything more, it will be considered as proof against the defendant, and not the fault of him who asked the question."


(23) It was declared by the Imperial Constitutions that while confidence should not always be reposed in torture, it ought not to be rejected as absolutely unworthy of it, as the evidence obtained is weak and dangerous, and inimical to the truth; for most persons, either through their power of endurance, or through the severity of the torment, so despise suffering that the truth can in no way be extorted from them. Others are so little able to suffer that they prefer to lie rather than to endure the question, and hence it happens that they make confessions of different kinds, and they not only implicate themselves, but others as well.


(24) Moreover, faith should not be placed in evidence obtained by the torture of enemies, because they lie very readily; still, under the pretext of enmity, its employment should not be rejected.


(25) After the case has been duly investigated, it can be decided whether confidence is to be placed in torture, or not.

This is from Scott's Translation of the Digest of Justinian, Book 48.18, available online here:
http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps11.htm


The Romans were an extremely, even unacceptably brutal lot, but dumb, they were not..


The point is they knew perfectly well that torture might elicit untruths, rather than truths, but, for them, that didn't make it entirely useless. Torture can, of course, be used in a such a way that the information sought is of such a kind that its own verification/falsification can be made.

For example, by revealing where the murder weapon is hidden.

A modern equivalent to that would, for example, be to obtain a password or account number.
Whatever the one under interrogation tells you, it can be readily checked, and it might be very hard to obtain such information otherwise.

This was some extremely sophisticated reasoning for its time, considering this was before scientific methods and testing became common.

Just tossing aside torture and focusing on how witnesses answer questions, there's a definite ability for the questioner to affect the memory of the witness.

There's also a good possibility of a witness imagining something that didn't happen, especially if "I don't know" isn't an acceptable response. Of course, a witness forced to give their best answer to something they don't actually know will have a harder time remembering that same answer if he's asked to answer the same question a few days later. The false memories he voluntarily invents are longer lasting.

Whether volunteered or forced, memories created at the suggestion of the interrogator are longer lasting than false memories the witness was forced to make up on their own. However, those forced to provide an answer are a lot more likely to choose the interrogator's suggestion as a real event than those that are allowed to answer "I don't know". So, suggesting an answer during torture could be expected to create a long lasting false memory.

That probably sounds a little convoluted, so here's the link to the study:
http://www.cgu.edu/PDFFiles/sbos/Pezdek_Confabulation.pdf [Broken]

It supports the Romans' idea that a torturer (or other interrogator) should never suggest an answer. Of course, they should have gone one step further and verified the self-generated memories during later questioning sessions - especially if they're torturing the person until they provide an answer. (Unfortunately, that's not the type of methodology that would be useful in a situation that was an imminent threat).

Then again, if a person is asked directly to provide an answer about something they didn't see or know about, the interrogator could get a false answer just because the witness is trying his best to provide whatever info he can possibly squeeze out his memories. It creates a dilemma since, if the interrogator just asks the witness to tell everything he remembers, he could leave out important details just because the witness can't imagine how that would even be relevant. Sometimes, the interrogator has to ask for specific info (do you remember anyone coming into your store and buying this particular type of pipe fitting, for example) if he has any hope of getting the desired info, since any witness providing that kind of info on their own is probably flooding the interrogator with so much useless trivia that the interrogator wouldn't see useful info if it hit him in the face.

Regardless, there's very few situations where information provided by torture would be of any value, since you would not want to rely on the info unless you had some quick method of verifying its authenticity (i.e. - the computer is sitting right in the room and the person will be tortured until you successfully log on).

Ironically, in the type of "war" we're fighting against terrorism, the small talk to put a detainee at ease before the official interrogation begins might be when the most important information would be obtained, based on the idea of social networking (Searching for Saddam). Might, since a lot of the techniques that worked in Iraq don't work nearly as well for an entity such as al-Qaeda, and wouldn't work nearly as well for a more traditional military structure.

 

[arildno]

It should also be mentioned that the possible utility of torture is NOT confined to what happens during that interrogation itself.

For example, physical pain hurts (of course!), it evokes an extreme need for comforting, i.e, a torture victim can easily regress, desperately wanting a cooing, loving parent again.

A "sympathetic" cell mate may provide a much needed father figure that will elicit the actual information in the aftermath of the agonizing session, in a consoling, mildly asking manner.

The crudeness of torture does not mean it cannot effectively be used in an extremely subtle information extraction program.

 

[arildno]

Whether volunteered or forced, memories created at the suggestion of the interrogator are longer lasting than false memories the witness was forced to make up on their own. However, those forced to provide an answer are a lot more likely to choose the interrogator's suggestion as a real event than those that are allowed to answer "I don't know". So, suggesting an answer during torture could be expected to create a long lasting false memory.

That probably sounds a little convoluted, so here's the link to the study:
Forced confabulation more strongly influences event memory if suggestions are other-generated than self-generated

Very interesting, thanks!

 

[arildno]

To give a few more Roman considerations concerning torture:

(1) This is also contained in a letter of the Divine Hadrian addressed to Sennius Sabinus. The terms of the Rescript are as follows: "Slaves are to be subjected to torture only when the accused is suspected, and proof is so far obtained by other evidence that the confession of the slaves alone seems to be lacking."

(10) Our Emperor, together with his Divine Father, stated in a Rescript that one brother could not be put to the question on account of another; and added as the reason that he should not be tortured to obtain evidence to implicate one against whom he could not be compelled to testify, if he was unwilling to do so.

(17) The Divine Severus stated in a Rescript, that the confessions of accused persons should not be considered as proofs of crime, if no other evidence is offered to influence the sense of duty of the judge who is to decide the case.

(..) Frequently, also, in searching for the truth, even the tone of the voice itself, and the diligence of a keen examination afford assistance. For matters available for the discovery of truth emerge into the light from the language of the witness, and the composure or trepidation he displays, as well as from the reputation which each one enjoys in his own community.

16. Modestinus, On Punishments, Book III.


The Divine Brothers stated in a Rescript that torture could be repeated.


(..) The Divine Pius stated in a Rescript that one who has made a confession implicating himself, shall not be tortured to obtain evidence against others.

The following concerns scepticism with regard to voluntary confessions from a slave:

(27) If anyone voluntarily confesses a crime, faith should not always be reposed in him; for sometimes one makes a confession through fear, or for some other reason. An Epistle of the Divine Brothers addressed to Voconius Saxa declares that a man who had made a confession against himself, and whose innocence was established, must be discharged after his conviction.


The terms of the Epistle are as follows: "It is in compliance with the dictates of prudence and humanity, my dear Saxa, that, where a slave was suspected of having falsely confessed himself guilty of homicide, through fear of being restored to his master, you condemned him, still persevering in his false statement, with the intention of subjecting to torture his alleged accomplices, whom he had also accused falsely, in order that you might render his statements with reference to himself more certain.


"Nor was your judicious intention in vain, as it was established by the torture that the persons referred to were not his accomplices, but that he had accused himself falsely. You can then set aside the judgment, and order him to be officially sold, under the condition that he never shall be returned to the power of his master, who, having received the price, will certainly be very willing to be rid of such a slave."

The point of all this is NOT to praise the Romans for their humanism (they were singularly lacking in that respect), but to show that cold rationality, rather than irrational hysterics, might underlie some cultures' decision to utilize torture as a means to extract information.

 

[BobG]

It should also be mentioned that the possible utility of torture is NOT confined to what happens during that interrogation itself.

For example, physical pain hurts (of course!), it evokes an extreme need for comforting, i.e, a torture victim can easily regress, desperately wanting a cooing, loving parent again.

A "sympathetic" cell mate may provide a much needed father figure that will elicit the actual information in the aftermath of the agonizing session, in a consoling, mildly asking manner.

The crudeness of torture does not mean it cannot effectively be used in an extremely subtle information extraction program.

Emotional support from another human is a human need, even if not a physical requirement such as food, air, etc. A human will instinctively do what it takes to obtain emotional support, even if that means developing a meaningful relationship with a volleyball.

So, yes, the method you suggest should work quite well - just as methods such as the interrogator developing a closer relationship with the detainee than the detainee currently shares with his home terrorist cell (one which probably isn't in a position of sending letters from home in Red Cross care boxes).

Emotional torture (removing all emotional support by putting the detainee in solitary confinement)

Emotional manipulation (strictly controlling sources of emotional support; interrogators are the only source of emotional support)

Emotional bonding (interrogator is just friendly and respectful to detainee, eventually earning mutual friendliness and respect).

Interesting ethical questions about each one, and none would be likely to violate any international codes of conduct.

The only difference between these and your example is the three latter methods rely on pre-existing needs while your torture artificially increases the detainee's immediate need for emotional support (in fact, it's very similar to why the good cop/bad cop routine works so often).

Perhaps the most effective (and cold blooded) method of utilizing something like waterboarding would be to torture him for information that he couldn't possibly have, with resting periods in his cell where a "compadre" would provide emotional support while probing for the info the interrogators really want. The torture sessions would wind up with the detainee spouting anything that he thinks would please the interrogators and make torture stop, but that would be okay since he wouldn't be corrupting any of the data the interrogators really wanted.

 

[arildno]

The only difference between these and your example is the three latter methods rely on pre-existing needs while your torture artificially increases the detainee's immediate need for emotional support (in fact, it's very similar to why the good cop/bad cop routine works so often).

Precisely.
When time is of the essence, torture, whether we think it justified or not, may accelerate the process where the end result is extraction of useful, and urgently needed, information.

Perhaps the most effective (and cold blooded) method of utilizing something like waterboarding would be to torture him for information that he couldn't possibly have, with resting periods in his cell where a "compadre" would provide emotional support while probing for the info the interrogators really want. The torture sessions would wind up with the detainee spouting anything that he thinks would please the interrogators and make torture stop, but that would be okay since he wouldn't be corrupting any of the data the interrogators really wanted.

Personalities matter as well, note the Roman observations:

*Frequently, also, in searching for the truth, even the tone of the voice itself, and the diligence of a keen examination afford assistance. For matters available for the discovery of truth emerge into the light from the language of the witness, and the composure or trepidation he displays, as well as from the reputation which each one enjoys in his own community

For some, BELIEVING that a cell mate has undergone way worse torture than oneself, may find pity&altruism a remedy to restore one's own shaken self-confidence that one's own torture has caused.

It might be difficult to lie to a shaking, sobbing (consummate) actor fearfully asking "You're not one of them, are you? You are also their enemy?"

Truth might spill out of oneself as a means to comfort a fellow sufferer..


Such rather devilish and subtle "angles of attacks" for interrogation are not narrowed by the presence of torture as one element; rather, that element becomes just another tool in the tool-box, to be used with discretion and ingenuity.

 

[Huckleberry]

You lost me on this paragraph. Could you explain, more gently, what you mean (especially how the final sentence follows from the previous ones)?

That child who was waterboarded by her father did learn her ABC's quickly. But after that experience every time she thinks of doing anything displeasing to her father she knows that he might kill her for it. She learns that displeasing Daddy means suffering and imminent death. She learns that brutality is an acceptable means of dealing with problem people. Maybe she associates brutality with affection.

The US has prosecuted it's enemies for waterboarding American soldiers, American soldiers for waterboarding enemies, and American law enforcement for waterboarding American citizens. Historically, waterboarding has long been defined as morally unacceptable torture. Now that the US government wishes to use that technique, the definition of torture is being redefined to make waterboarding acceptable. They make an appeal to logic, saying that it is effective in quickly extracting truthful information that can be used to save lives. They want it to be morally acceptable interrogation. They want a less empathetic practice to be more logically moral. There is no reason for ethical behaviour without empathy to drive it. Morality becomes whatever logically achieves desired results. That is not a standard of values.

Lives were in danger before torture was acceptable, and they will still be in danger afterwards. Even if torture can be used expeditiously to save lives, there are long-term consequences for incorporating torture into the values of a nation. We would justify the use of torture against our hated military enemies. We would try to justify its use in local law enforcement, many of whom are ex-military, against our hated criminals. We'd see more instances like the one in the OP where torture and other violence are used against children. Whatever is the focus of our anger and hate becomes the dehumanized subject of justifiable torture. Other nations will know that displeasing the US means suffering and imminent death. We will tell them that we make war for peace, and we torture for love, when really all we have done is used logic to justify the absence of virtue. Peace and love extend only to those whom we deem it applies to. That would be our standard of morality.

Can torture save lives? Perhaps, though I think it plays more on the fear of death than the saving of lives, and the long-term consequences shouldn't be dismissed for short-term benefits. Is it morally 'wrong'? You betcha!

 

[Rasalhague]

Double-blind torture?

It's a fun amateur sport devising "devilish" methods in the comfort of an internet forum, no doubt. All the same, even if we accept that the (as yet speculative) effectiveness of rational torture might, in some hypothetical case, outweigh fellow-feeling (if any) and self-interested desire to minimise the chance that we could be tortured (see also the argument in the quoted dialogue here), I think we have to take into account the sordid details of torture as actually practiced in this less-than-ideal world: a world of accidents, mistakes, misidentification, self-justification, sadism, vendettas, bounty-hunting, stupidity, excess, monkey-see-monkey-do(-to-daughter), etc. A world where it's not wise to put much trust in any government or human authority. A world where, once licensed, however carefully you restrict your preferred set of methods, they will inevitably be misused, and they will spread.

Whether the Romans lived up to their own ideals, I don't know. The anti-terror warriors apparently have not. For example, although Omar Deghayes, the man who was blinded in one eye at Guántanamo, reports, "They never said what they wanted from me," many other sources talk of leading questions and forced confessions where the prisoner knew what they were expected to confess to:

"Ignoring their protests that they were in Britain at the time, the Americans interrogated them so relentlessly that eventually all three falsely confessed. They were finally saved - at least on this occasion - by MI5, which came up with documentary evidence to show they had not left the UK"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/mar/14/terrorism.guantanamo

"Barre said he was picked up and thrown around the interrogation room when he wouldn't confess to a false allegation. [...]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

"Benyam Mohammed al-Habashi was then taken to Bagram airbase where he alleges he was forced to sign confessions that he had been planning a "dirty bomb" attack on a US city."
http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGAMR511522005

*

Many others talk of wanton violence:

"Dilawar, who died on December 10, 2002, was a 22-year-old Afghan taxi driver and farmer [...] When beaten, he repeatedly cried "Allah!" The outcry appears to have amused U.S. military personnel, as the act of striking him in order to provoke a scream of "Allah!" eventually "became a kind of running joke," according to one of the MP's."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

*

The clinical attitude of the interrogation manuals ( http://documents.nytimes.com/c-i-a-reports-guidelines-for-interrogators/page/1 [Broken] ), with its precise restrictions, belies the grisly, chaotic reality of what actually happened in many cases:

"Juma Al Dossary claims he was interrogated hundreds of times, beaten, tortured with broken glass, barbed wire, burning cigarettes, and sexual assaults."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

"The guards forced petrol and benzene up the anuses of prisoners."
Amnesty Magazine #159, Jan/Feb 2010.

"An estimated 100 detainees have died during interrogations, some who were clearly tortured to death."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-05/how-many-were-tortured-to-death/

*

Nor have juveniles been spared:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/24/juveniles_at_gitmo/index.html [Broken]

 

[zomgwtf]

I'm at a loss of words for this man doing this to his daughter. The topic seems to have changed a bit to the Military use of this to gain information though and this is what I have to say about that:

I'm just wondering why in times of war it matters what the American Military does to Prisoners it captures in order to gain intelligence?

I mean like why does it matter if waterboarding is torture or not? I feel comfortable in saying that the American military (I'm Canadian by the way) will use these only to gain information and only on Prisoners of WAR. I.e. they won't be grabbing random people of the street to waterboard them into confession that they are a witch or something rediculous.

When it comes to defending your nation and your people I think that it is only PROPER for that nation to utilize every method they have in order to accomplish that... including torture. I am willing to bet that those American soldiers and those journalist who had been beheaded were also tortured for information... and then they got their heads CUT off with a hand held KNIFE, they definitely were NOT DEAD and NOT EXPECTING THAT. So I see 2 possible solutions, get information out of people by whatever means necessary in order to prevent further incidents, or just go in full force and kill everyone involved. I wouldn't personally mind if either of these methods were used but it seems that America has chosen to go down the path of gathering information.

Who cares about conventions? Who cares about the laws? None of it really matters when it comes to issues of NATIONAL SECURITY. Sure maybe a bunch of these people have been wrongly tortured... well that sucks for them and that's why I'm a proud Canadian and I won't go fight against America or freedom or support any group that fights against America or freedom.

Do you honestly think that those people who have been tortured at the hands of the enemy had any real relevant important information to give to the enemy? They were basically in the exact same situation as the people who the Americans torture the only difference is that the people Americans torture probably do have important and relevant information to give up.

 

[MotoH]

I'm at a loss of words for this man doing this to his daughter. The topic seems to have changed a bit to the Military use of this to gain information though and this is what I have to say about that:

I'm just wondering why in times of war it matters what the American Military does to Prisoners it captures in order to gain intelligence?

I mean like why does it matter if waterboarding is torture or not? I feel comfortable in saying that the American military (I'm Canadian by the way) will use these only to gain information and only on Prisoners of WAR. I.e. they won't be grabbing random people of the street to waterboard them into confession that they are a witch or something rediculous.

When it comes to defending your nation and your people I think that it is only PROPER for that nation to utilize every method they have in order to accomplish that... including torture. I am willing to bet that those American soldiers and those journalist who had been beheaded were also tortured for information... and then they got their heads CUT off with a hand held KNIFE, they definitely were NOT DEAD and NOT EXPECTING THAT. So I see 2 possible solutions, get information out of people by whatever means necessary in order to prevent further incidents, or just go in full force and kill everyone involved. I wouldn't personally mind if either of these methods were used but it seems that America has chosen to go down the path of gathering information.

Who cares about conventions? Who cares about the laws? None of it really matters when it comes to issues of NATIONAL SECURITY. Sure maybe a bunch of these people have been wrongly tortured... well that sucks for them and that's why I'm a proud Canadian and I won't go fight against America or freedom or support any group that fights against America or freedom.

Do you honestly think that those people who have been tortured at the hands of the enemy had any real relevant important information to give to the enemy? They were basically in the exact same situation as the people who the Americans torture the only difference is that the people Americans torture probably do have important and relevant information to give up.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Hurkyl]

Who cares about conventions? Who cares about the laws? None of it really matters when it comes to issues of NATIONAL SECURITY.

Why not?

The United States, formed a union to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

The common defense is only one of many important things -- and didn't even get capitalized!

National security is not the one true end from which all other worthwhile things follow: it is merely one of several goals we want our government to provide. And even then, one could easily argue that security should be merely a means to an end rather than end in of itself.


I agree that it is reckless^* to completely disregard national security in favor of idealism. But you go way too far in the other direction by implying that all else must be disregarded for the sake of national security.

*: This is not meant to imply that I have judged any arguments in this thread as being recklessly idealistic

 

[zomgwtf]

Why not?

The United States, formed a union to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

The common defense is only one of many important things -- and didn't even get capitalized!

National security is not the one true end from which all other worthwhile things follow: it is merely one of several goals we want our government to provide. And even then, one could easily argue that security should be merely a means to an end rather than end in of itself.


I agree that it is reckless to completely disregard national security in favor of idealism. But you go way too far in the other direction by implying that all else must be disregarded for the sake of national security.

All must be disregarded for the sake of national securty in order to keep all those very fine things you mention that the USA formed union for. It is the single most important thing to a nation. Do you honestly think that America would have Justice, Tranquility, defense, Welfare, Liberty and Prosperity if it wasn't interested in insuring it would be able to keep these values??

That is to say what's the point of forming a union for the values if your not going to defend the values (under actual physical attack, not just name calling). If you do not defend those values then you might as well not have them at all because soon, they'll go out the door. Right behind the nations sense of security.

EDIT: This of course does not mean that it's ok to just 'claim' that so-and-so are threats or have information just to torture them because you don't like them. I don't think that happens though and if it does it's probably fairly rare, maybe a few of the stories are headline coverage but I doubt that the information the military gains from such endevours is released to make headline news ever.

This is a war that's being fought and it'll only be won by those who are willing to push the hardest. Not by those with the best ideas.

 

[Rasalhague]

I feel comfortable in saying that the American military (I'm Canadian by the way) will use these only to gain information and only on Prisoners of WAR. I.e. they won't be grabbing random people of the street to waterboard them into confession that they are a witch or something rediculous.

Your comfort is misplaced. Try googling "extraordinary rendition".

Some of those grabbed have been released without charge, after years of torture.

When it comes to defending your nation and your people I think that it is only PROPER for that nation to utilize every method they have in order to accomplish that... including torture.

Including blowing yourself up on a bus full of enemy civilians because your nation lacks better weapons to defend itself? Natural maybe, but not something to celebrate as proper. A lot of harm in the world, over the centuries, has been justified in that way. When a nation has enough power and security to exercise restraint in defending itself, that can be to its advantage too, given that whatever it does, it still has to live in a world of other nations.

Who cares about conventions? Who cares about the laws? None of it really matters when it comes to issues of NATIONAL SECURITY. Sure maybe a bunch of these people have been wrongly tortured... well that sucks for them and that's why I'm a proud Canadian and I won't go fight against America or freedom or support any group that fights against America or freedom.

I don't find this any more convincing in upper case. How do you feel about the argument expressed in the dialogue quoted here and in this poem?

Do you honestly think that those people who have been tortured at the hands of the enemy had any real relevant important information to give to the enemy?

Who is this question directed at?

 

[humanino]

I think that it is only PROPER [...] just go in full force and kill everyone involved. I wouldn't personally mind
[...]
Who cares about the laws?
[...]

I'm sorry, but mixing up reasonable points with extreme opinions such as those above spoils the reasonable part of your argumentation (if any, I forgot).

I'll bring another obvious (sorry arildno for being simple minded)

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 

[mheslep]

... I feel comfortable in saying that the American military (I'm Canadian by the way) will use these only to gain information and only on Prisoners of WAR...

Some of those grabbed have been released without charge, after years of torture.

Years of torture? Source for this extraordinary claim?

 

[Gokul43201]

That is to say what's the point of forming a union for the values if your not going to defend the values (under actual physical attack, not just name calling).

And your suggestion for defending those values is to first abandon those values?

 

[Hurkyl]

All must be disregarded for the sake of national securty in order to keep all those very fine things you mention that the USA formed union for. It is the single most important thing to a nation. Do you honestly think that America would have Justice, Tranquility, defense, Welfare, Liberty and Prosperity if it wasn't interested in insuring it would be able to keep these values??

If I give up Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Liberty, and Propsperity for the sake of common defense, then I have failed to keep all of those values. :tongue:

 

[Rasalhague]

That is to say what's the point of forming a union for the values if your not going to defend the values (under actual physical attack, not just name calling). If you do not defend those values then you might as well not have them at all because soon, they'll go out the door. Right behind the nations sense of security.

Many people who are opposed to torture believe that it's right for a nation to defend itself. Perhaps even you could think of some act so depraved that not even US security would justify?

 

[zomgwtf]

@Rasal
I've studied extraordinary rendition. Show me one case where it was used against some random person? I don't see how that counters my point. I feel completely comfortable knowing the American military or any military for that matter will ever come after me in my entire lifetime with the purpose of gaining information. (as currently stands based on my Countries actions and my own personal actions)

Yeah, they can put themselves into buses and blowing up civilians. They can hijack and fly planes into buildings killing thousands at a time.
You know what sucks about all this? It makes the other nation very pissed off at you and eventually you end up realizing: Maybe we f***ed with the wrong nations... so far America hasn't gotten to the point where they make their enemies realize this but soon enough and what are you going to do about it? Post poems or quote 'philosophical' dialogue of Gods laws and mans laws? I highly doubt that'll be an effective weapon.\

The question was directed at Hurkyl.

@humanino
I've studied war and nations from both philosophical and historical view points. If you think that my views are 'extreme' then so be it. Maybe they are a bit extreme... however can you show me a case where a nation didn't do the things (or have others help them do these things) that I claim they should do and they are still existent?

 

[zomgwtf]

If I give up Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Liberty, and Propsperity for the sake of common defense, then I have failed to keep all of those values. :tongue:

I don't think so reason being:
You are a union OF those values not a union of enforcing/spreading these values on/in other unions.

EDIT: I do understand however that this gets a little iffy because people from WITHIN the union (Americans) can also be guilty and it's not only a 'external' problem. But from my point of view they aren't even really 'part of the union' just as a Russian spy isn't 'really' 'part of the union'

 

[Rasalhague]

Years of torture? Source for this extraordinary claim?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGAMR511522005

Torture allegations begin with imprisonment at Bagram, 2004, include drugging and genital mutilation in Morocco, and "routine" beatings in Guántanamo. Medical report after release without charge in 2009 confirms "bruising, organ damage, stomach complaints, malnutrition, sores to feet and hands, severe damage to ligaments as well as profound emotional and psychological problems" including evidence of "recent" torture ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/22/binyam-mohamed-injuries ).

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers story.php
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/30...ar/07-09-13/www.ararcommission.ca/default.htm

For many more cases, just follow the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States#Example_cases

 

[zomgwtf]

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGAMR511522005

Torture allegations begin with imprisonment at Bagram, 2004, include drugging and genital mutilation in Morocco, and "routine" beatings in Guántanamo. Medical report after release without charge in 2009 confirms "bruising, organ damage, stomach complaints, malnutrition, sores to feet and hands, severe damage to ligaments as well as profound emotional and psychological problems" including evidence of "recent" torture ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/22/binyam-mohamed-injuries ).

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers story.php
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/30...ar/07-09-13/www.ararcommission.ca/default.htm

For many more cases, just follow the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States#Example_cases

Whats that? A few cases where the torture of a prisoner was unjustified? Great. I guess that's ok.






How many terrorist are there judged to be from Islamic extremist groups alone? Something like 10% of the total population. Well over 100 million terrorist.

It's also interesting to note that the majority of the OTHER 90% are only not considered 'extremist' or 'terrorist' merely because they don't take part in the violence. Yet many, MANY of them support it and support terrorism.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't think so reason being:
You are a union OF those values not a union of enforcing/spreading these values on/in other unions.

Er, huh? Please explain in more detail how I am simultaneously able to give up Justice and have Justice at the same time.

Your entire position seems to revolve around the central, comical idea that national security trumps every other concern I might have as a citizen. I'm calling you out on that.

(And I haven't even gotten to the fact that domestic tranquility, prosperity, etc. are dependent on foreign relations, foreign prosperity, and so forth)

(Nor have I gotten to the fact that sacrifices in the name of national security can, in fact, compromise national security)

EDIT: I do understand however that this gets a little iffy because people from WITHIN the union (Americans) can also be guilty and it's not only a 'external' problem. But from my point of view they aren't even really 'part of the union' just as a Russian spy isn't 'really' 'part of the union'

Okay, so you're trying to sacrifice the Liberty, etc. of others. But I find it utterly unconvincing. I was all set to ask you when you were going to start sacrificing the safeguards that protect Justice for me in the name of national security... but then I noticed you started doing it again before you even finished the paragraph! Sure, you had to rationalize it, but that's not much of a comfort.

 

[zomgwtf]

I'm out to go watch the hockey game. Go Canada! I'll be back and probably respond later tonight

 

[Rasalhague]

@Rasal
I've studied extraordinary rendition. Show me one case where it was used against some random person? I don't see how that counters my point. I feel completely comfortable knowing the American military or any military for that matter will ever come after me in my entire lifetime with the purpose of gaining information. (as currently stands based on my Countries actions and my own personal actions)

I've cited several examples in recent posts, including one where the victim was a Canadian citizen, seized at JFK airport, New York, eventually released without charge.

http://www.maherarar.ca/mahers story.php
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/206/301...ca/default.htm

Okay, so perhaps you feel confident that you don't fit the ethnic profile. I'd still argue that a world that accepts torture in one context is more likely to extend it to others, thereby making it a risk for us all. Still you might be right that it's a remote increase in risk for you personally. But usually when people use big words like security and freedom in politics, they don't just mean their own personal security and freedom.

Post poems or quote 'philosophical' dialogue of Gods laws and mans laws? I highly doubt that'll be an effective weapon.

I'm not asking you how effective you felt they would be in armed combat. I was wondering how you would reply to the argument they make.

The question was directed at Hurkyl.

Interesting... How did you know in advance that Hurkyl was going to join in with this thread, and which opinion of Hurkyl's were you predictively addressing?