Safeguards To Torture

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote name='Deb' post='1457117' date='Feb 7 2008, 03:44 PM']Yes! Many citizens who maybe weren't around pre-1980 may not know that most of the world looked up to us when it came to our moral values. Like, not starting wars for no reason, not defying the geneva convention, not torturing people, giving everyone the right to a trial, not illegally spying on people in this country,,,,, I could go on.
Now, Bush and co. may wish to have you believe that every single thing they have done has been in protection of this country but, that is all carp. When things like they have done become the norm, we lose more and more of our soul and more and more of our freedom.
We USED to be better than that.[/quote]

Let's see...I think they respected us more because we saved them from the Germans twice and then rebuilt their homes. The United States of America has started several wars for no reason. There was the one with the Native Americans. There was the Spanish-American war. There was the war with Mexico. These wars had excuses that may have been flimsier than some claim the reason for the War in Iraq to be.

Oh, the 'USA doesn't torture' meme. That is simply not true. America used torture. France used torture. Britain used torture. It wasn't until after World War II that was started frowning on that sort of thing. During and after WWII, torture became, publicly at least, the method of the enemy.

[quote]Before World War II, the British, the Americans, and the French all practiced torture: the French in Vietnam, the British in their mandate of Palestine, the Americans in the Philippines, not to mention what our police were doing in cities large and small. Police in democratic states used electrotorture, water torture, painful stress positions, drugs, and beatings. They did so sometimes on their own, sometimes in collusion with local citizens, and sometimes with the quiet approval, if not explicit authorization, of their governments. All this before the Central Intelligence Agency ever existed.[/quote]--[url="http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/46637.html"]The History News Network[/url]

I could go on.

It would be nice to be able to say that we USED to be better than that, and also have it be the truth at the same time. But history repeats itself. There is nothing new under the sun. Even freedom in the United States has waxed and waned over the years. Go look up the Sedition Acts. Or there was the First Red Scare. Or the McCarthy thing.

The United States of America is a great country. But appeals to the past are going to backfire in this case.

[Alycin]

"If one consideres waterboarding torture."





It is so blatantly apparent to me that if something is SO FREAKING CLOSE to being torture that people can't even decide whethere or not it should "officially" be called such... well then there's your answer.


I mean does anyone else feel this way? It's like drawing a line and placing waterboarding 1/16 of a milimeter away from the "official torture" tick. If it's that close... then we should err on the side of NOT BEING THE JERKS THAT TORTURE HUMAN BEINGS.



Sorry for the CAPS I just feel very strongly about this.

[dairygirl4u2c]

sorry you feel that way alycin. i feel very strongly the other way.

to say that you'd rather allow 20 million people die from a nuke, if not more in a doomsday nuke invasion... just so you can not torture.
if you were in that situatin and didn't torture, you should be thrown in jail and found guilty of treason.

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1457243' date='Feb 7 2008, 08:31 PM']"If one consideres waterboarding torture."
It is so blatantly apparent to me that if something is SO FREAKING CLOSE to being torture that people can't even decide whethere or not it should "officially" be called such... well then there's your answer.
I mean does anyone else feel this way? It's like drawing a line and placing waterboarding 1/16 of a milimeter away from the "official torture" tick. If it's that close... then we should err on the side of NOT BEING THE JERKS THAT TORTURE HUMAN BEINGS.
Sorry for the CAPS I just feel very strongly about this.[/quote]

This is why I think we should be very careful about what we do. If we do torture people, or use techniques that are close, we should have safeguards.

The problem is that I have never heard a compelling safeguard proposal from anyone in Congress. That includes banning torture altogether, a meme that I tend to group with most of the MoveOn.org memes. They are positions that no presidential candidate actually holds, but the candidates will sure pretend to think that way in order to win the nomination.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457322' date='Feb 8 2008, 12:14 AM']sorry you feel that way alycin. i feel very strongly the other way.

to say that you'd rather allow 20 million people die from a nuke, if not more in a doomsday nuke invasion... just so you can not torture.
if you were in that situatin and didn't torture, you should be thrown in jail and found guilty of treason.[/quote]

and if a substantial number of people died, you should be executed.

i say substantial number, cause it's always possible they wouldn't have info etc, and it was possible that they wouldn't have attacked.
i suppose i admire you for your convictions if you're willing to die for them. it's hard for me to comprehend not being willing to torture.... it is easy for me to see not wanting to because of psycholocialy avoiding the issue.
(i'm using you in a generic sense, no one personally necessarily)

definitely execution though. along with everyone else's risk of death, you take the risk of dying too, by not torturing.

[Alycin]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457322' date='Feb 7 2008, 11:14 PM']sorry you feel that way alycin. i feel very strongly the other way.

to say that you'd rather allow 20 million people die from a nuke, if not more in a doomsday nuke invasion... just so you can not torture.
if you were in that situatin and didn't torture, you should be thrown in jail and found guilty of treason.[/quote]


The end doesn't justify the means.

And when did I *EVER* say anything about people dying from a nuke? I didn't. And people use torture because people WON'T give them information, not because they actually know something.... but because they THINK they MIGHT know something.

If someone was torturing me I'd probably say just about anything to get them to stop.

[Alycin]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1457454' date='Feb 8 2008, 01:25 AM']and if a substantial number of people died, you should be executed.

i say substantial number, cause it's always possible they wouldn't have info etc, and it was possible that they wouldn't have attacked.
i suppose i admire you for your convictions if you're willing to die for them. it's hard for me to comprehend not being willing to torture.... it is easy for me to see not wanting to because of psycholocialy avoiding the issue.
(i'm using you in a generic sense, no one personally necessarily)

definitely execution though. along with everyone else's risk of death, you take the risk of dying too, by not torturing.[/quote]


I would most definitely give up my own life in order to not compromise my morals. I would gladly be killed before having to kill another human being.

There is no way to prove that anyone is going to die before you do the torturing. If there were, you wouldn't need to torture.

You're saying it's okay for a possibly innocent person to be tortured because of information they may or may not have.

That's absurd.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Alycin

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Deb' post='1457117' date='Feb 7 2008, 04:44 PM']Yes! Many citizens who maybe weren't around pre-1980 may not know that most of the world looked up to us when it came to our moral values. Like, not starting wars for no reason, not defying the geneva convention, not torturing people, giving everyone the right to a trial, not illegally spying on people in this country,,,,, I could go on.
Now, Bush and co. may wish to have you believe that every single thing they have done has been in protection of this country but, that is all carp. When things like they have done become the norm, we lose more and more of our soul and more and more of our freedom.
We USED to be better than that.[/quote]
Except we did start wars, assassinate leaders in foreign countries, overthrow governments, and spy on people in this country. Quite often actually. Reality is quite different from the pretty pics we paint for ourselves. Mostly its justified on the grounds, the same grounds used to justify torture etc, that it was a political necessity, the very same argument used today.

[Deb]

[quote name='SanctitasDeo' post='1457241' date='Feb 7 2008, 08:26 PM']Let's see...I think they respected us more because we saved them from the Germans twice and then rebuilt their homes. The United States of America has started several wars for no reason. There was the one with the Native Americans. There was the Spanish-American war. There was the war with Mexico. These wars had excuses that may have been flimsier than some claim the reason for the War in Iraq to be.

Oh, the 'USA doesn't torture' meme. That is simply not true. America used torture. France used torture. Britain used torture. It wasn't until after World War II that was started frowning on that sort of thing. During and after WWII, torture became, publicly at least, the method of the enemy.

--[url="http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/46637.html"]The History News Network[/url]

I could go on.

It would be nice to be able to say that we USED to be better than that, and also have it be the truth at the same time. But history repeats itself. There is nothing new under the sun. Even freedom in the United States has waxed and waned over the years. Go look up the Sedition Acts. Or there was the First Red Scare. Or the McCarthy thing.

The United States of America is a great country. But appeals to the past are going to backfire in this case.[/quote]


If you can't see the difference in the way the United States is currently viewed around the world to the way it was viewed pre 1980 I will assume it is because you are too young and too indoctrinated into the current culture of death in our country. Like I said, you behave in a certain way long enough, you see it as okay or normal, like the progression of pornography or abortion.
Pulling in Clinton to try and excuse Bush for his war lust and total disregard for human and civil rights is such a lame cop-out. Don't even try to compare the two Presidents. Clinton left us in pretty good shape with a 200 billion surplus and this year Bush is leaving us with a 600 billion deficit.
I would not want to have orders to torture on my soul when my day of judgement comes.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1457243' date='Feb 7 2008, 09:31 PM']"If one consideres waterboarding torture."
It is so blatantly apparent to me that if something is SO FREAKING CLOSE to being torture that people can't even decide whethere or not it should "officially" be called such... well then there's your answer.
I mean does anyone else feel this way? It's like drawing a line and placing waterboarding 1/16 of a milimeter away from the "official torture" tick. If it's that close... then we should err on the side of NOT BEING THE JERKS THAT TORTURE HUMAN BEINGS.
Sorry for the CAPS I just feel very strongly about this.[/quote]
Exactly! If one has to hem and haw and ask, "umm, is this torture, I'm really not sure, does strapping someone to a board and simulating drowning count as 'torture'," then, YES, IT'S TORTURE. All the parsing and rationalization and attempted justification is just to help folks sleep at night. Good luck with that.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1457461' date='Feb 8 2008, 03:18 AM']I would most definitely give up my own life in order to not compromise my morals. I would gladly be killed before having to kill another human being.

There is no way to prove that anyone is going to die before you do the torturing. If there were, you wouldn't need to torture.

You're saying it's okay for a possibly innocent person to be tortured because of information they may or may not have.

That's absurd.[/quote]

plus i obviously didn't flesh out the factors that'd need to be proven. the person who didn't torture had to have been such that.... there's a known impending attack... the person is believed to have the info needed to prevent it. and, it'd be based on reasonable doubt like every other crime is.
this is a very hard standard to prove, so it's not like it's not like it'd be used much or liberally.
plus, you'd only be executed when people actually died and you passed up the opporutinty.

if someone was standing on a mountain about to shoot off a nuke, and you had a gun to prevent them.... it's not too far off to say that you should be found guilty of treason if you don't do anything.
with teh right circumstances, not torturing can be almost the same thing. there's always a hint of doubt, but that's life. it's close enough to warrant what you selfishly didn't do to save people.

what's absurd is not being willing to torture someone when there's a good chance they have the info to save millions of lives. ends justifying the means argument never stands up to scrutiny when you compare it to other things that's allowed.... really that argument is just part of the pscyhologically messed up stuff i was talking about earlier: people just say that, mere words, and are not really putting themselves in that situation. so this is a specific psycho gliche i was talking about.

but either way, not torturing when you should..... it's idiotic, irrational, and absolutely immoral.

Edited February 8, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote name='Deb' post='1457482' date='Feb 8 2008, 08:42 AM']If you can't see the difference in the way the United States is currently viewed around the world to the way it was viewed pre 1980 I will assume it is because you are too young and too indoctrinated into the current culture of death in our country. Like I said, you behave in a certain way long enough, you see it as okay or normal, like the progression of pornography or abortion.
Pulling in Clinton to try and excuse Bush for his war lust and total disregard for human and civil rights is such a lame cop-out. Don't even try to compare the two Presidents. Clinton left us in pretty good shape with a 200 billion surplus and this year Bush is leaving us with a 600 billion deficit.
I would not want to have orders to torture on my soul when my day of judgement comes.[/quote]

Please don't use my age to excuse your ignorance. It is irrelevant to the argument and to the facts.

I already told you: Europe and the world liked us because we saved them from the Germans twice, as well as the Soviet Union, not because we were some mythical, perfect, Zion-like Camelot. The United States has white-washed its history in a lot of places. History is written by the victors, and we were the victor.

I am NOT using Clinton to excuse Bush for anything. I don't want to excuse Bush. He has done what he has done, and he will pay both history's price and Judgment's. All I am saying is that your statement regarding the beginnings of torture in the United States are incorrect. Bush did not start it. Even Clinton only started the current programs. We have been using torture for a long time.

I am not trying to excuse torture based on its tenure, either. Honestly, I thin I would prefer to err on the side of caution and not torture anyone. I am really glad that I am not the President, and that I never will be. However, I hate to see you use such immature, juvenile, impotent arguments against the issue. You are trying to stretch history. It will only stick as long as no one does any research. I know you may have been born in a lovely golden age when everyone [i][u]believed[/i][/u] that the United States was Heaven on Earth, but regardless, it is not true, and flies in the face of the facts.

[quote]Don't even try to compare the two Presidents. Clinton left us in pretty good shape with a 200 billion surplus and this year Bush is leaving us with a 600 billion deficit.[/quote]

This is another example of what I am talking about. The state of the economy after each president's terms has nothing to do with how many people they had tortured while in office. Why did you include this? It is irrelevant.

[dairygirl4u2c]

what if there's a kidnapper who has kids in a sealed underground vault with only a few moments left to live? isn't torture the proper thing to do to get that vault open, if it's the only viable way of doing it?
you guys are saying you wouldn't do anythihng? what kind of sad pathetic animals are you ?

what if there's a criminal in an intergation room, and all those police we've come to know don't rough them up to accomplish a goal?
any episode of 24 etc you'll see this when it's needed, in rare occasions.

what if you have an ecoptic pregnancy? you remove the tube and say you're not justifying the means due to the principle of double effect. talk about rationaliztion.
you could find many hypothetical scenario that you could apply that to.

police arrest members of a terrorist cell planning a bombing, but the actual suicide bomber and bomb have already left for their mission. The terrorists know when and where the bomber will strike, but refuse to tell more, except that "it'll all be over in three hours." what kind of pathetic excuses for human being and americans are you if you don't do anything? this is a clear example of warranting execution.

batman and robin were chasing a crook, but had to let him get away when he ran across the street. Batman insisted that they proceed to the nearest corner and wait for the "cross" signal instead of following the jaywalking bad guy.
this almost, though not necessarily depending on the person's motives.... smacks of unbridled egotism. "the ends never justify the means" are saying that they prize the sanctity of their own consciences (i'm almost certain if they're honest) above all else, including the lives of innocents. "sorry, ma'am, about your little girl. at least her death goes to show what fine, upstanding, moral people we police are. i hope that's some consolation." yeah...

if gun control is a moral necessity.... and we don't want free access to grenade launchers etc... we're justifying the means (arguably) by limiting the rights to ensure we have a safe society.

if someone is breaking into your house.... and they're not clearly one way or another giong to kill you... but you are afraid and have some reason to believe they are, there's say a 5050 chance... do you shoot them? isn't that justifying the menas since they didn't attack you? arguably it is. this is the same as when a terrorist is on a plane and you shoot them. or bombing a building with innocents in it cause you think there's a bad guy in there but aren't sure etc. innocent pepole died.
i never understood hte difference between why it was okay to kill people but not to torture people. arguments i heard i never agreed with.

[Jaime]

[quote]2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.[/quote]

That pretty much sums it up. Catholics are not for torture

[dairygirl4u2c]

what if in my underground vault scenario... and my terrorist bombing plot one... the info could be gotten if you shot them dead? this is okay, but torture is not?

i've gotten responses to this before, i simply never agreed with them. just thought i'd put it out there.