Using your logic, couldn't we do the same to Americans?
Also, why not do more than waterboard? Why not amputate fingers? I mean, if that's what it takes right? Where do you draw the line?
Oh also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%...eged_terrorist) An American who was not waterboarded, but was denied habeas corpus.
Torture is not just waterboarding. Isolation, temperature extremes, and sleep/sensory deprivation can also be considered torture, especially when used in conjunction with each other.
What logic is that?
Waterboarding seems to work just fine. I'll draw the line there.
OMG! Wait...it's happened before. And that President's face is on Mount Rushmore. Habeas corpus has from time to time been suspended. Sometimes wrongly so but, that doesn't amount to torture; which, by the way, is the topic. Want to talk about Habeas corpus, start your own thread.
Who knows, we may even agree.
Okay. Your point?
My point is, why are you drawing the line there? I mean, if there WAS a ticking time bomb scenario, why would you stop at waterboarding?
Because it works?
Do all people who beleive we are evil actively attempt to kill Americans?
Do the proxies believe we are evil as well?
Is that not why they are willing to kill us in the first place?
Which is the most plausible statement, based on what any reasonable person would say:
a) Torture makes the idea that we are evil more credible.
or
b) Torture makes the idea that we are evil less credible.
or
c) It makes no difference at all.
Apparently we can change minds.
Since your statement contradicts that of the interrogator, I must conclude it is likely false.
Unless, of course, you can provide some first-hand proof of your statement.
Further, most people's opinion of what a "reasonable" person would say differs from yours. That poll, while far from scientific does provide some anectdotal proof to support the thesis:
"If we do things that are perceived as evil, we will be veiwed as evil."
Well, I might not stop there but, from all accounts, waterboarding work (if anything will work), there is no permanent injury, and everybody lives.
What if waterboarding DOESN'T work though? Are you saying that the interrogator should stop there? Even if hundreds or THOUSANDS of lives were on the line?
You said you would be willing to cross the line. Does this mean that you think the law should be able to go further as well? Or just that you think the law should stop at waterboarding, and that you personally would go further (against the law)?
Let me know when you have some proof of this.
Saw that.
Pretty much directly contradicts everything that Yoni has argued in this thread, including the ticking time bomb schtick.
I also love the idea that peoples opinions are forever unchanging/fixed. If that's the case, shouldn't we just pull out of the Middle East right now? lol
A large network of religious nutjobs have determined the United States of America, it Western allies, and just about every other non-Muslim on the planet are an existential threat to the re-establishment of a Islamic Caliphate and they are determined -- by whatever means necessary -- to either, eliminate non-Muslims, convert them to their fundamentalist view of Islam, or subjugate them in Dhimmitude.
Something we can 99% agree on.
Within this statement however, lies the kernel of the limitations of your viewpoint, and the ultimate failure of your ability to adequately grasp the nature of the situation in any meaningful way.
"convert [non-fundamentalist Muslims] to their fundamentalist view of Islam"
Meaning that there is a potential population of recruits to this cause that are moderate in their views, and not willing to destroy the US "by whatever means necessary".
SO
If that population sees us doing evil things, like, say torture, then it makes it easier for that network of religous nutjobs to convert the moderates to the cause does it not?
The common sense answer is yes, and this common sense answer is supported by a lot of sources within the US defense community in a much better position than Yoni to make first-hand observations.
The OP is one example and there are others.
Torture of a prisoner/captive may yield some short-term gains, but in the long run is VERY counter-productive.
Yoni, feel free to offer some expert saying that torture is in our long-term interest. I will wait.
That is another failure on the part of Yoni:
He pretty much admits that there is a portion of the Muslim population that isn't committed to this fallacious jihad.
Opinion is not an either/or proposition, either love or hate us.
It is a full spectrum of those two extremes and everthing in between.
There is some undefinable but definite line past which an individual may help this network. It may not be joining up to be a suicide bomber or anything as active, but may be as simple as a sympathetic border gaurd looking the other way. Every act that helps them, either overt or covert, by definition, hurts us.
When you torture, you start moving people over that line that were not there before, and helping the enemy.
To suggest otherwise is to claim, as Yoni does, that ordinary people aren't repulsed by the act of torture. That is just stupid. Shame on Yoni for not having the intellectual honesty to admit he might be wrong at the expense of common sense.
Worse, he is actively advocating a line of action that HELPS the enemy.
Why do you hate America, Yoni?
ticking. time. bomb. jack. bauer. subway.
Yoni is off his rocker.
Torture is wrong, and I'll justify this from all over the place.
Torture violates liberties.
The basic human rights to life cannot exist with torture. Human rights apply to all people, nationality does not matter. These rights are never waived no matter what happens. The first argument against this is that a terrorist would waive these rights by being a terrorist and knowing the information that is seeked. Fallacy: you don't know what information they have. This means torture will take place with no purpose which is immoral in itself.
Torture gives too much power to government.
Any argument applied to the torture of people that are not citizens of the U.S. can be applied to the torture of it's own people. If it is moral to torture to obtain information that will save lives then nationality places no role. Thus the government must be obligated even to torture it's own citizens to save lives. This is obviously absurd. The state has no right to torture or kill its citizens under any cir stance. If it is immoral to torture it's own people then it must be immoral to torture others.
Torture cannot be universalized.
This answers the situation in which the desperate father tortures a thug to find his daughter. Assume this statement holds: "I find it acceptable to torture a suspect that I believe knows the information to find my child." Now universalize it: "I will that all people should be able to torture people they suspect that they believe know the information to find their child". This cannot be willed, for it means that anyone could torture another to locate their child. If a kidnapper runs by your house and you go outside, you will have signed away your life to the father chasing him who thinks you are the suspect, the father having lost sight of the kidnapper.
The ends does not justify the means.
Assume this holds: "It is moral to sacrifice the life of someone if the lives being saved by that action are greater than the lost life of that sacrifice." This creates so many problems that this is quickly shown to be absurd. Problem one is that it again justifies government to torture its own citizens to save lives. Problem two is that it creates clearly immoral situations. If a train loaded with nuclear waste is out of control and headed to the city, it is justifiable to push a fat man onto the tracks to derail the train, even if the man is maimed or killed. The counter-argument is that it is moral to sacrifice the life of an immoral person, not an innocent man, but why? If waterboarding a terrorist to save two people is worth it, then certainly leaving a man with some amputated limbs is worth 500,000 people getting irradiated. As a matter of fact the government would be obligated to do things like kill people for their organs if it saved more people than that one life was worth.
Revisit the ticking time bomb for a second. Is it justified to torture a terrorist to stop it? Is it justified to torture or kill his family in front of him to stop it? Is it justified to force an innocent person to throw their body on it? If you are going to use an extreme example that will never happen (ticking time bomb) then you cannot ignore the equally extreme examples of sacrificing the innocent. The pro-torture argument hinges on one assumption: that the guilty have no rights.
This is an extremely slippery slope and the forced sacrifice of one persons liberties or life cannot be justified in any situation without justifying things most people would consider horrific.
I find it quite funny that Yoni is so pro-torture when a true conservative would find this basic violation of humanity appalling. Don't bother arguing with the radical right anymore, they are dillusional. The true conservatives are the libertarians.
I hadn't been watching this thread, so I missed some of the dialog. Doesn't Yoni think as I do, that real torture is unacceptable. I think it's the practices that people are calling torture. You see. I don't call waterboarding torture, but many do.
Could this be where one draws the line at?
Then you won't mind being subjected to say... half an hour of the procedure?
Surely if it isn't torture, it must not be that bad.
7^ Shane, Scott (2007-11-07). "A Firsthand Experience Before Decision on Torture", New York Times. Retrieved on 18 December 2007.
5 ^ a b c d Various (April 5, 2006). "Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales". Human Rights News. Retrieved on 2007-12-18. In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales more than 100 United States law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and the use of the practice is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
8^ a b Davis, Benjamin (2007-10-08). "Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff", University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Retrieved on 18 December 2007. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."
9^ a b c "French Journalist Henri Alleg Describes His Torture Being Waterboarded by French Forces During Algerian War", Democracy Now! (2007-11-05). Retrieved on 18 December 2007. "I have described the waterboarding I was submitted to. And no one can say, having passed through it, that this was not torture, especially when he has endured other types of torture—burning, electricity and beating, and so on."
10^ a b c "Torture's Terrible Toll", Newsweek (2005-11-21). According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal."
11^ Grey, Stephen (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York, New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 225–226. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'".
12^ a b Bell, Nicole (2007-11-03). "Retired JAGs Send Letter To Leahy: “Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.”", Crooks and Liars. Retrieved on 18 December 2007. "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all cir stances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
-------------------------------------------
I will close with a simple question for Wild Cobra:
Is waterboarding an acceptable form of interrogation if it is perfomed on captured US service personnel?
Has anyone else noticed that Yonivore has quit the thread?
Wonder why.
We will disagree on that. Fine. I don't care what other people say. I am not a sponge of liberal philosophy like many here. I was actually uncertain for some time if it should be considered torture, because it does push the bounds.
So you agree that it is perfectly acceptable if it is used on US service personnel?Is waterboarding an acceptable form of interrogation if it is perfomed on captured US service personnel?
It's better than what John McCain went though, or a beheading.
That is not a "yes" or a "no". That is a dodge, and you know it.
Do you agree that since waterboarding is not torture it is an acceptable form of interrogation for captured US service personnel?
Let me predict this:
Wild Cobra will not answer the question with a straight yes or no, no matter how many times I pose it.
He stated flat out that he does not believe waterboarding is torture.
Since it is not torture, it must therefore be acceptable to him for use in interrogations.
Simple logic would dictate then, if it were used on US servicemembers, he must find that acceptable as well. If he then denies that it is acceptable, he would therefore be implying that it might actually be torture, and that his position is horribly hypocritical.
Stop me here if I am wrong WC. I have kept the flaming to a minimum, out of a modi of respect. Please earn that by proving me wrong with a straight yes or no answer to my question.
I think your logic is flawed in that no matter who has captured our servicement we would want them to be treated humanely even though we know with some enemies there's no chance in of that...and, that would include those enemies we are on record as having waterboarded.
So, no, that I am willing to waterboard an al Qaedan does not necessarily translate to acceptance of the same treatment of Americans by al Qaeda. Period. If only we could expect such treatment of our service men captured by our enemies.
Name a potential enemy of the United States that abides by any of the Geneva Conventions that would be deterred from using harsh interrogations techniques on our servicemen or would be influenced by our treatment of their captives. Just one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
