Torture: Still doesn't work

[DMX7]

This argument lacks substance. At best it's tautological-circular argument. Please provide a valid reason why torture is unethical.

You kind of ignored the rest of my point as to why it's unethical.

More importantly, it's inflicted on people who may not even have intel to share, or worse, on people who aren't guilty or in any way associated with terrorism.

Wikileaks papers reveal plenty of innocent people at Gitmo too, so it's not just a "what if" scenario.

[ChumpDumper]

We're not talking about torturing for the sake of torturing.

We're talking about preventing loss of innocent lives. When you value the life of a murderer over the lives of an innocent, you have a poor heirarchy of values that is anti life.

In this case, you have a courier for a top high level terrorist, you need to extract info, why is it wrong to use torture if all options have been exhausted..?

Why is it wrong to rape his children in front of him to get the info?

[LnGrrrR]

We're talking about preventing loss of innocent lives. When you value the life of a murderer over the lives of an innocent, you have a poor heirarchy of values that is anti life.

Actually, we're talking about the POSSIBLE loss of innocent lives. That makes a big difference.

As DMX stated above, they have released people from GTMO, have they not? Do you think that the government is 100% infallible when it comes to who they detain?

If not, then you are willing to accept some amount of torture performed on those who are innocent.

In this case, you have a courier for a top high level terrorist, you need to extract info, why is it wrong to use torture if all options have been exhausted..?

If that's the case, why is it wrong to chop off their fingers one by one?

Heck, if we're going to use utilitarian arguments, why not just abduct his family, and chop off his daughter's fingers one by one until he tells us the info? After all, we're talking about thousands of lives compared to just one little girl.

[Ignignokt]

If we incarcerated people who haven't been on trial, I would definitely consider that inhumane.

As well, some forms of incarceration are inhumane by themselves. I think 24 hr isolation is inhumane, and should only be undertaken when a prisoner shows a history of attacking/threatening other inmates. In these cases, the liberty of the other inmates to be safe outweighs the inhumanity of isolation. (And yes, I understand that you feel the liberty of us to be free > torturing suspected terrorists.

Shooting somebody who is about to knife you would also inflict pain.

Hear we are talking about self defense. Killing another human being also would qualify as not respecting their right to life (humanity) if you put it the way. But your right to life should supercede your killer's. The people he's attacking haven't chosen to defend themselves or fight him, he's going to murder them senselessly, in this case he's denied his right as a human being. A swat sniper sees that a man is holding a gun to a hostage, he has the moral right to take him out in order to save the innocent life without due process.

[Ignignokt]

Actually, we're talking about the POSSIBLE loss of innocent lives. That makes a big difference.

As DMX stated above, they have released people from GTMO, have they not? Do you think that the government is 100% infallible when it comes to who they detain?

If not, then you are willing to accept some amount of torture performed on those who are innocent.



If that's the case, why is it wrong to chop off their fingers one by one?

Heck, if we're going to use utilitarian arguments, why not just abduct his family, and chop off his daughter's fingers one by one until he tells us the info? After all, we're talking about thousands of lives compared to just one little girl.

Regulations and laws are not infallible either, you're not arguing for their abolition either.

[Ignignokt]

Utilitarian argument this is not, this has to deal with the right to self defense. Do you have the right to your life, or is your right to life limited to the rights of your killer?

[Ignignokt]

Actually, we're talking about the POSSIBLE loss of innocent lives. That makes a big difference.

As DMX stated above, they have released people from GTMO, have they not? Do you think that the government is 100% infallible when it comes to who they detain?

If not, then you are willing to accept some amount of torture performed on those who are innocent.



If that's the case, why is it wrong to chop off their fingers one by one?

Heck, if we're going to use utilitarian arguments, why not just abduct his family, and chop off his daughter's fingers one by one until he tells us the info? After all, we're talking about thousands of lives compared to just one little girl.

Also, being in gitmo doesn't mean you're being waterboarded. That's a detainee issue, that doesn't address torture.

[ChumpDumper]

Utilitarian argument this is not, this has to deal with the right to self defense. Do you have the right to your life, or is your right to life limited to the rights of your killer?

How do you know this person is a killer?

Is it in the screenplay you wrote?

[Ignignokt]

Why is it wrong to rape his children in front of him to get the info?

You'd be torturing innocents. We're not talking about raping kids, we're talking about torturing only high ranking officials who are committed to killing us.

[DMX7]

Utilitarian argument this is not, this has to deal with the right to self defense. Do you have the right to your life, or is your right to life limited to the rights of your killer?

What if your "killer" was never going to kill you and you killed him because someone else said he was, or worse, someone else was paid to say he was? Seems like this essentially happened when Afghan rebels were getting paid per "terrorist" turned over to the U.S. - I can't imagine they would just accuse anyone of being a terrorist for money. Poor desperate people would never turn over innocent peoplejust for money, would they?

[ChumpDumper]

You'd be torturing innocents. We're not talking about raping kids, we're talking about torturing only high ranking officials who are committed to killing us.

How do you know the child is innocent?

And if it saves a lot of lives, what would that matter?

And how do you determine a suspected terrorist's official rank in your 24 fanfiction?

[Ignignokt]

How do you know this person is a killer?

Is it in the screenplay you wrote?

That would depend on the intel.

[Agloco]

Chemotherapy is torture too.

"Torture" entered into of ones own volition. How exactly does that relate to waterboarding?

Did you just equate medical treatment with interrogation techniques?

[ChumpDumper]

That would depend on the intel.

Did you take the uncorroborated word of a cab driver?

[DMX7]

You'd be torturing innocents. We're not talking about raping kids, we're talking about torturing only high ranking officials who are committed to killing us.

Only high ranking officials? So you're qualifying your statements? I thought you were pro torturing the lowly couriers too.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if a terrorist is holding a hostage at gunpoint, you have my permission to waterboard him to get him to release the hostage.

[LnGrrrR]

Also, being in gitmo doesn't mean you're being waterboarded. That's a detainee issue, that doesn't address torture.

Fair enough.

Hear we are talking about self defense. Killing another human being also would qualify as not respecting their right to life (humanity) if you put it the way. But your right to life should supercede your killer's.

I agree here. The problem I see is that you feel that anyone who should/is waterboarded is certainly guilty. You also assume that they have the information, and that the information is actionable. How are these things known?

In other words, how do you know if they're not telling you something, or if they really just don't know?

[Ignignokt]

How do you know the child is innocent?

And if it saves a lot of lives, what would that matter?

And how do you determine a suspected terrorist's official rank in your 24 fanfiction?

He's innocent because he's not a fully formed individual and is judged differently than an adult who has developed, and why would a terrorist organization trust a child to keep high ranking secrets?

I'm not arguing about targeting innocent people for torture.

[Ignignokt]

Fair enough.



I agree here. The problem I see is that you feel that anyone who should/is waterboarded is certainly guilty. You also assume that they have the information, and that the information is actionable. How are these things known?

In other words, how do you know if they're not telling you something, or if they really just don't know?

I'm not assuming all scenarios. I'm just saying, if you could prevent lives through extracting intel by torture, why is it wrong?

[DMX7]

Well, if a terrorist is holding a hostage at gunpoint, you have my permission to waterboard him to get him to release the hostage.

You have my permission to kill him.

[ChumpDumper]

He's innocent because he's not a fully formed individual and is judged differently than an adult who has developed, and why would a terrorist organization trust a child to keep high ranking secrets?

Why would he not?

Children are tried as adults all the time. You're saying that is unethical.

I'm not arguing about targeting innocent people for torture.

If it works and saves many lives, why not?

[Ignignokt]

Well, if a terrorist is holding a hostage at gunpoint, you have my permission to waterboard him to get him to release the hostage.

I'll leave that up to you. I wouldn't need intel in that situation.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll leave that up to you. I wouldn't need intel in that situation.

You're the one who brought the situation up for no reason.

[Ignignokt]

Why would he not?

Children are tried as adults all the time.

That doesn't mean it's moral.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm not assuming all scenarios. I'm just saying, if you could prevent lives through extracting intel by torture, why is it wrong?

Because you might torture the innocent?