07 Nov 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZSO Bush is guilty of "Double Talk" and he is wrong, thats clear. We can accuse just about any politician of that at one time or another, even the most moral and upstanding and brilliant ones .. and we all know Bush is none of those.
Here we go again.
...Theoretical world... muslim terrorists threatening our lawns... full nude bars... torture for the side of good is good... I'm a giant tool... muslims are evil and bad... we should kill them all and cut off their ears... my child is going to be just as hate-filled as I am... those white sheet guys sure sound nice... Bush administration can do no wrong... sun shines out their butt... etc.
With that out of the way.. I have a question on the matter or torture:
Which one of you with a country to run or with people's lives in your hands or with loved ones to look after, will decide not to use torture on a suspect who you think has vital information on a bombing that will lead to the deaths of many ?
On the matter of the US using torture as a means of getting information, I dont know how many of you are well-travelled or familiar with the goings-on in other countries, but if I had to choose one country where I have to be trapped by authorities, who think I am a suspect with info, then the US will be in the top 4, along with Canada, Australia and the UK. Is anyone familiar with how info is extracted from suspects in the Far East , or muslim run Middle East, or in South America or in the former Soviet Bloc or in Africa?
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by Rajk999Canada, Australia and the UK and the US? Those are the countries you'd choose to subject yourself to interrogations in given the choice of anywhere? The US where you could spend 3 years getting a tan in Guantanamo Bay without being charged? Australia where you could disappear into secret custody and not be able to tell your family you're not dead? The UK which isn't even a country?
SO Bush is guilty of "Double Talk" and he is wrong, thats clear. We can accuse just about any politician of that at one time or another, even the most moral and upstanding and brilliant ones .. and we all know Bush is none of those.
With that out of the way.. I have a question on the matter or torture:
Which one of you with a country to run or with ...[text shortened]... East , or muslim run Middle East, or in South America or in the former Soviet Bloc or in Africa?
I can name plenty of countries I'd prefer; France, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, the list goes on.
Also wib used Doublespeak in the Orwellian sense of the word (perhaps using it as a single word would have better illustrated this point?), a mindset where two opposing views can be expressed without the conflict registering in the mind of the expresser.
As for your hypothetical question, as you may have guessed from my posts I would oppose the use of torture in all situations. For one it's not very effective, people either lie and make things up (The Inquisition comes to mind) or just plain don't reveal what you need.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by Rajk999You say if you have to be trapped by the authorities you'd want to be in the US. But you also advocate the use of torture if the circumstances call for it.
SO Bush is guilty of "Double Talk" and he is wrong, thats clear. We can accuse just about any politician of that at one time or another, even the most moral and upstanding and brilliant ones .. and we all know Bush is none of those.
With that out of the way.. I have a question on the matter or torture:
Which one of you with a country to run or with ...[text shortened]... East , or muslim run Middle East, or in South America or in the former Soviet Bloc or in Africa?
So the police or military detains you, they believe you have evidence they need to prevent a crime, save lives, etc, and you'd be perfectly willing to be tortured? Even if you're innocent?
Does that seem right to you?
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672This scenario is probably the best we could hope for in a bad situation. I agree with it.
I know what you're saying, and it's an extremely difficult argument. I made the point a few days ago in another thread that in those circumstances, a conscientious, patriotic American would probably choose to break the law. And he would probably become an American folk hero, and millions would be donated to his legal defense fund before he received ...[text shortened]... ial pardon. But those actions, even in extraordinary circumstances, have to be against the law.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672I'm in agreement here, and it calls to mind an excellent article on this issue that Mark Bowden wrote for The Atlantic last year. He arrives at the same conclusion.
I know what you're saying, and it's an extremely difficult argument. I made the point a few days ago in another thread that in those circumstances, a conscientious, patriotic American would probably choose to break the law. And he would probably become an American folk hero, and millions would be donated to his legal defense fund before he received ...[text shortened]... ial pardon. But those actions, even in extraordinary circumstances, have to be against the law.
07 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672His profile says he's from Texas.
Your statements are the ones that aren't based in reality. Won't you go away?
You're the ideologue. You swallow everything Bush says hook, line and sinker. And you're paranoid. Where do you live - South Dakota, West Virginia? I am willing, here and now, to guaran-damn-tee you that no terrorist will ever blow up anything where you live. You live in America's armpit. No terrorist will ever blow up anything there. I promise.
There is one fundamental assumption in newdad's scenario that I'd like to point out. The assumption is that torture is effective. Then reasoning then follows that if torture is effective in securing trustworthy information from the detained, then it should be used in some cases (only the most dire of circumstances perhaps) to do so.
Now I don't know a lot about torture (Ask Rush. He's an expert for sure.), but I've heard/read from a wide variety of sources (including an interview with a head interrogator for the Israeli's) that torture is an inept method. The distinct trend is to elicit only information that you put into it, that is, the victim tells you anything and everything they think you want to hear.
According to this Israeli guy, psychological methods are the very best way to get reliable information. Now that I think of it, the interview was in an issue of New Scientist. I'll have to check around for the copy.
Anyway, if the head interogator for Israel is correct, then newdad's justification for torture falls flat. The doomsday scenario does not call for torture. In fact it demands that we use something better.
Edit: It looks like Rajk999 makes the same assumption.
Edit2: Dammit X, looks like you made my point. I'll post it anyway. I like to see myself talk.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by wibNo its not right if they have no reason to suspect me. But we are talking about a hypothetical situation in which top authorities (not police) in an emergency situation have reason to believe that I am aligned to and/or support in some way a group of terrorists. And if I do, I should expect to be treated with suspicion and suffer the consequences.
You say if you have to be trapped by the authorities you'd want to be in the US. But you also advocate the use of torture if the circumstances call for it.
So the police or military detains you, they believe you have evidence they need to prevent a crime, save lives, etc, and you'd be perfectly willing to be tortured? Even if you're innocent?
Does that seem right to you?
In response to Sasquatch, I have no problem with NZ, but Western Europe is not a group of countries I would like be at the mercy of. Their history is tainted with too many horror stories.
07 Nov 05
Originally posted by AlgernonHow far does that rationale go? In your scenario, would you kill one of his kids or his grandmother in front of him in an attempt to extract information you think he might have?
I'm in agreement here, and it calls to mind an excellent article on this issue that Mark Bowden wrote for The Atlantic last year. He arrives at the same conclusion.